Post-COVID-19 Lung Transplantation Italian Pivotal Protocol: Some Ethical Considerations.

SARS­CoV­2 mostly affects the respiratory system with clinical patterns ranging from the common cold to fatal pneumonia. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the high number of patients who were infected with SARS­CoV­2 and subsequently recovered, it has been shown that some patients with post-COVID-19 terminal respiratory failure need lung transplantation for survival. There is increasing evidence coming from worldwide observations that this procedure can be performed successfully in post-COVID-19 patients. However, owing to the scarcity of organs, there is a need to define the safety and efficacy of lung transplant for post-COVID-19 patients as compared to patients waiting for a lung transplant for other pre-existing conditions, in order to ensure that sound ethical criteria are applied in organ allocation. The Milan's Policlinic Lung Transplant Surgery Unit, with the revision of the National Second Opinion for Infectious Diseases and the contribution of the Italian Lung Transplant Centres and the Italian National Transplant Centre, set up a pivotal observational protocol for the lung transplant of patients infected and successively turned negative for SARS­CoV­2, albeit with lung consequences such as acute respiratory distress syndrome or some chronic interstitial lung disease. The protocol was revised and approved by the Italian National Institute of Health Ethics Committee. Description of the protocol and some ethical considerations are reported in this article.

How covid-19 pandemic impacted integrated care pathways for lung cancer: the experience of two Italian centers in veneto region

Background: COVID-19 pandemic has represented a historic challenge to healthcare systems. The management of cancer care has become a crucial issue for clinical services to cancer patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, raising evidence has been published on lung cancer care but no data have been presented on the integrated care pathways (ICP) impact. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the ICPs of consecutive lung cancer patients who accessed two Centres before and after COVID-19 pandemic: the Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV)/University Hospital of Padua and University Hospital of Verona. Sixteen indicators about oncology, radiaton therapy, thoracic surgery, pathology and pneumology were developed using groupfacilitation techniques taking into account their reproducibility, significance, measurability. We report data extracted from electronic medical records and linked softwares, about MDT performance at the two participating Centres, and preliminary data about pathological and oncological indicators in Padua. Additional data about both complete ICPs will be presented at the Conference. Results: We compared data about ICP performance in two window periods: 1/3/2019-30/4/2019 and 1/3/2020- 30/4/2020. MDT meetings were reshaped in order to discuss those cases where more than two specialists were required and whenever possible on a web-basis;therefore, it determined an average reduction of patients discussed of 57.5%. Preliminary data from Padua showed that median time between diagnostic procedure and diagnosis was reduced from 11 days in 2019 to 7.5 days in 2020, mostly due to a prioritization of oncological procedures over any other. Moreover, a 39% reduction of first oncological visits was observed between the two time frames;this was linked to a reduction of out of region second opinion and to optimization of outpatient access. Among patients under oncological treatment, 12(4%) and 8(2%) patients received treatment within 30 days from death in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the experience the two Centres went through, we identified the key steps in ICP impacted by a pandemic such COVID-19 so to proactively put in place robust service provision in thoracic oncology.