Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Lung transplant for interstitial lung disease: outcomes before and after implementation of the united network for organ sharing lung allocation scoring system.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to evaluate whether the adoption of the united network for organ sharing lung allocation score (LAS) was associated with significant changes in lung transplantation (LTX) outcomes for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) who underwent LTX at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics.

METHODS: Outcomes for 107 consecutive patients with various forms of ILD who underwent LTX between January 1993 and March 2009 were examined. Patients transplanted following the implementation of the LAS system (LAS, n = 56) were compared with those transplanted prior to LAS implementation (pre-LAS, n = 51) for whom LAS scores were calculated.

RESULTS: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) comprised the majority of patients with ILD. Recipients transplanted after the implementation of the LAS were significantly older (pre-LAS: 50.4 vs. LAS: 56.7 years, P < 0.01), required more supplemental oxygen (3 vs. 5 l/min, P < 0.01) and displayed lower cardiac index values (3.1 vs. 2.6 l/m(2), P < 0.01). The estimated LAS was significantly increased from 38.3 (pre-LAS) to 43.3 (LAS), P < 0.01. However, waiting time decreased from 266 to 78 days (P < 0.01). The rate of bilateral vs. single LTX was lower (35 vs. 16%, P = 0.02) for the post-LAS group. Cold ischaemic time was shorter in the post-LAS group (434 vs. 299 min, P < 0.01), and the length of hospital stay decreased from 24 to 11 days (P < 0.01). Hospital mortality (11 vs. 7%, P = 0.51) and post-transplant survival did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant outcomes for patients with ILD or the subset of recipients with IPF were not adversely affected by the implementation of the LAS.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app