Alberto Benazzo1, Stefan Schwarz1, Florian Frommlet2, Thomas Schweiger1, Peter Jaksch1, Peter Schellongowski3, Thomas Staudinger3, Walter Klepetko1, György Lang4, Konrad Hoetzenecker5. 1. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Institute for Medical Statistics, CEMSII, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Division of Intensive Care Unit, Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Thoracic Surgery, Semmlweis University and National Institute for Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. 5. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: konrad.hoetzenecker@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal life support is increasingly used to bridge deteriorating candidates to lung transplantation. Nevertheless, only few systematic reports with a limited number of patients exist describing this practice and its changes over time. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and performed an era analysis to identify trends over time and risk factors for mortality. After applying propensity score matching, outcomes of bridged patients were compared with those of standard lung transplantation recipients. RESULTS: Extracorporeal life support was used in 120 patients as an intention to bridge to lung transplantation. Eleven patients (9.2%) were bridged between 1998 and 2004, 39 patients (32.5%) were bridged between 2005 and 2010, and 70 patients were bridged (58.3%) between 2010 and 2017. In the first era, the main bridging modality was venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 10, 90.9%), whereas venovenous devices were primarily used in later eras (second era: n = 18, 46.2%; third era: n = 39, 55.8%). In the second and third eras, 9 patients (23.1%) and 24 patients (34.3%) could be bridged awake. Short-term outcome was poor in the first era, with only 36.4% of patients discharged alive but improved in later eras (53.8% and 77.1%; P = .002). Extracorporeal life support-bridged patients showed an impaired short-term outcome compared with standard recipients. However, survival conditional on 90 days did not differ among the groups (P = .178). In univariate and multivariate analyses, awake extracorporeal life support was protective for survival, whereas acute retransplantation was a risk factor for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, the role of extracorporeal life support bridging evolved from an acute rescue therapy to a semi-elective procedure. Stratified outcome analysis revealed that extracorporeal life support bridging yielded similar long-term survival compared with nonbridged patients.
OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal life support is increasingly used to bridge deteriorating candidates to lung transplantation. Nevertheless, only few systematic reports with a limited number of patients exist describing this practice and its changes over time. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and performed an era analysis to identify trends over time and risk factors for mortality. After applying propensity score matching, outcomes of bridged patients were compared with those of standard lung transplantation recipients. RESULTS: Extracorporeal life support was used in 120 patients as an intention to bridge to lung transplantation. Eleven patients (9.2%) were bridged between 1998 and 2004, 39 patients (32.5%) were bridged between 2005 and 2010, and 70 patients were bridged (58.3%) between 2010 and 2017. In the first era, the main bridging modality was venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 10, 90.9%), whereas venovenous devices were primarily used in later eras (second era: n = 18, 46.2%; third era: n = 39, 55.8%). In the second and third eras, 9 patients (23.1%) and 24 patients (34.3%) could be bridged awake. Short-term outcome was poor in the first era, with only 36.4% of patients discharged alive but improved in later eras (53.8% and 77.1%; P = .002). Extracorporeal life support-bridged patients showed an impaired short-term outcome compared with standard recipients. However, survival conditional on 90 days did not differ among the groups (P = .178). In univariate and multivariate analyses, awake extracorporeal life support was protective for survival, whereas acute retransplantation was a risk factor for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, the role of extracorporeal life support bridging evolved from an acute rescue therapy to a semi-elective procedure. Stratified outcome analysis revealed that extracorporeal life support bridging yielded similar long-term survival compared with nonbridged patients.
Authors: Lorriana E Leard; Are M Holm; Maryam Valapour; Allan R Glanville; Sandeep Attawar; Meghan Aversa; Silvia V Campos; Lillian M Christon; Marcelo Cypel; Göran Dellgren; Matthew G Hartwig; Siddhartha G Kapnadak; Nicholas A Kolaitis; Robert M Kotloff; Caroline M Patterson; Oksana A Shlobin; Patrick J Smith; Amparo Solé; Melinda Solomon; David Weill; Marlies S Wijsenbeek; Brigitte W M Willemse; Selim M Arcasoy; Kathleen J Ramos Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 13.569
Authors: Anna Elisabeth Frick; Michaela Orlitová; Arno Vanstapel; Sofie Ordies; Sandra Claes; Dominique Schols; Tobias Heigl; Janne Kaes; Berta Saez-Gimenez; Robin Vos; Geert M Verleden; Bart Vanaudenaerde; Stijn E Verleden; Dirk E Van Raemdonck; Arne P Neyrinck Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2021-02-05
Authors: Cecilia Veraar; Stefan Schwarz; Jürgen Thanner; Martin Direder; Panja M Boehm; Leopold Harnoncourt; Joachim Ortmayr; Clarence Veraar; Julia Mascherbauer; Walter Klepetko; Martin Dworschak; Hendrik J Ankersmit; Bernhard Moser Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-03
Authors: Nam Eun Kim; Ala Woo; Song Yee Kim; Ah Young Leem; Youngmok Park; Se Hyun Kwak; Seung Hyun Yong; Kyungsoo Chung; Moo Suk Park; Young Sam Kim; Ha Eun Kim; Jin Gu Lee; Hyo Chae Paik; Su Hwan Lee Journal: Respir Res Date: 2021-11-28
Authors: Christian Lang; Peter Jaksch; Mir Alireza Hoda; György Lang; Thomas Staudinger; Edda Tschernko; Bernhard Zapletal; Silvana Geleff; Helmut Prosch; Riem Gawish; Sylvia Knapp; Oliver Robak; Florian Thalhammer; Alexander Indra; Markus Koestenberger; Robert Strassl; Thomas Klikovits; Kamran Ali; Gottfried Fischer; Walter Klepetko; Konrad Hoetzenecker; Peter Schellongowski Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Julia Riebandt; Thomas Haberl; Klaus Distelmaier; Martin H Bernardi; Anne-Kristin Schaefer; Guenther Laufer; Daniel Zimpfer; Dominik Wiedemann Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 2.430