We have located links that may give you full text access.
Moderate-Flow Perfusion is Superior to Low-Flow Perfusion in Ex Situ Lung Perfusion.
Transplantation Proceedings 2024 September 5
BACKGROUND: Full-flow perfusion during prolonged ex situ lung perfusion (ESLP) results in unacceptable pulmonary edema formation. Clinical ESLP at 30% to 50% predicted cardiac output (CO) supports acceptable physiologic outcomes; however, progressive pulmonary edema still develops. Lower flow rates may provide equivalent physiologic preservation with less edema formation due to reduced hydrostatic pressures. We report our results of moderate-flow (MF; 30% CO) vs low-flow (LF; 10% CO) negative pressure ventilation (NPV)-ESLP with transplantation.
METHODS: Twelve pig lungs underwent 12-hours of NPV-ESLP with 30% or 10% CO (n = 6/group). Three left lungs per group were transplanted post-ESLP and assessed in vivo over 4 hours. Lung function was assessed by physiologic parameters, weight-gain, and pro-inflammatory cytokine profiles.
RESULTS: Results are MF vs LF (mean ± SEM). All lungs demonstrated acceptable oxygenation post-ESLP (454.2 ± 40.85 vs 422.7 ± 31.68, P = .28); however, after transplantation, the MF lungs demonstrated significantly better oxygenation (300.7 ± 52.26 vs 141.9 ± 36.75, P = .03). There was no significant difference in compliance after ESLP (21.38 ± 2.28 vs 16.48 ± 2.34, P = .08); however, pulmonary artery pressure (PAP; 10.89 ± 2.28 vs 21.11 ± 0.93, P = .06) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; 438.60 ± 97.97 vs 782.20 ± 162.20, P = .05) were significantly higher in the LF group. Weight gain (%) post-ESLP and post-transplant was similar between groups (29.42 ± 5.72 vs 24.17 ± 4.42, P = .24; and 29.63 ± 7.23 vs 57.04 ± 15.78, P = .09). TNF-α and IL-6 were significantly greater throughout LF ESLP.
CONCLUSIONS: The MF NPV-ESLP results in superior lung function with less inflammation compared to LF NPV-ESLP.
METHODS: Twelve pig lungs underwent 12-hours of NPV-ESLP with 30% or 10% CO (n = 6/group). Three left lungs per group were transplanted post-ESLP and assessed in vivo over 4 hours. Lung function was assessed by physiologic parameters, weight-gain, and pro-inflammatory cytokine profiles.
RESULTS: Results are MF vs LF (mean ± SEM). All lungs demonstrated acceptable oxygenation post-ESLP (454.2 ± 40.85 vs 422.7 ± 31.68, P = .28); however, after transplantation, the MF lungs demonstrated significantly better oxygenation (300.7 ± 52.26 vs 141.9 ± 36.75, P = .03). There was no significant difference in compliance after ESLP (21.38 ± 2.28 vs 16.48 ± 2.34, P = .08); however, pulmonary artery pressure (PAP; 10.89 ± 2.28 vs 21.11 ± 0.93, P = .06) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; 438.60 ± 97.97 vs 782.20 ± 162.20, P = .05) were significantly higher in the LF group. Weight gain (%) post-ESLP and post-transplant was similar between groups (29.42 ± 5.72 vs 24.17 ± 4.42, P = .24; and 29.63 ± 7.23 vs 57.04 ± 15.78, P = .09). TNF-α and IL-6 were significantly greater throughout LF ESLP.
CONCLUSIONS: The MF NPV-ESLP results in superior lung function with less inflammation compared to LF NPV-ESLP.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 September 24
Biomarkers in acute kidney injury.Annals of Intensive Care 2024 September 15
Pathophysiology and Treatment of Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Youth.Diabetes Care 2024 September 9
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
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