Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;161(5):1674-1685.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.166. Epub 2020 May 23.

Deceased-donor lobar lung transplant: A successful strategy for small-sized recipients

Affiliations
Free article

Deceased-donor lobar lung transplant: A successful strategy for small-sized recipients

Jose Luis Campo-Canaveral De La Cruz et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: Lobar lung transplantation (LLTx) from deceased donors is a potential solution for donor-recipient size mismatch for small sized recipients. We reviewed our institutional experience to compare outcomes after LLTx to standard lung transplantation (LTx).

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed transplants in our institution from January 2000 to December 2017. LLTx early- and long-term outcomes were compared with LTx. Additional analysis of outcomes was performed after dividing the cohort into 2 eras (era 1, 2000-2012; era 2, 2013-2017).

Results: Among the entire cohort (1665), 75 were LLTx (4.5%). Compared with LTx, LLTx were more frequently bridged to transplant with extracorporeal life support or mechanical ventilation and were transplanted in a rapidly deteriorating status (respectively, 20% vs 4.4%, P = .001; 22.7% vs 7.9, P < .001; and 41.3% vs 26.5%, P = .013). LLTx had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (respectively, median 17 vs 4 days, and 45 vs 23, both P < .001), and greater 30-day mortality (13.3% vs 4.3%, P = .001) and 90-day mortality (17.3% vs 7.2%, P = .003). In era 2, despite a significantly greater 30-day mortality (10.8% vs 2.8%, P = .026), there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between LLTx and LTx (13.5% vs 5.1%, P = .070). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was not significantly different between LLTx and LTx (73.2% vs 84.4%, 56.9% vs 68.4% and 50.4% vs 55.8, P = .088).

Conclusions: Although LLTx is a high-risk procedure, both mid- and long-term survival are comparable with LTx in all cohorts in the modern era. LLTx therefore represents a valuable surgical option for small-sized recipients.

Keywords: lobar lung transplant; lung transplant; size matching.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Commentary: Small can be beautiful, in the right hands.
    Lee LKF, Hsin MKY. Lee LKF, et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May;161(5):1686-1687. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.079. Epub 2020 May 1. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021. PMID: 32532500 No abstract available.
  • Commentary: Lobar lung transplantation: Trick or treat-(ment).
    Lang G, Klepetko W. Lang G, et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May;161(5):1687-1688. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.084. Epub 2020 May 1. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021. PMID: 32532506 No abstract available.
  • Discussion.
    Hartwig MG. Hartwig MG. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 May;161(5):1684-1685. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.168. Epub 2020 Jul 25. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021. PMID: 32723592 No abstract available.