Does kidney transplantation with a standard or expanded criteria donor improve patient survival? Results from a Belgian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Changes in recipient and donor factors have reopened the question of survival benefits of kidney transplantation versus dialysis. METHODS: We analysed survival among 3808 adult Belgian patients waitlisted for a first deceased donor kidney transplant from 2000 to 2012. The primary outcome was mortality during the median waiting time plus 3 years of follow-up after transplantation or with continued dialysis. Outcomes were analysed separately for standard criteria donor (SCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants. We adjusted survival analyses for recipient age (20-44, 45-64 and ≥65 years), sex and diabetes as the primary renal disease. RESULTS: Among patients ≥65 years of age, only SCD transplantation provided a significant survival benefit compared with dialysis, with a mortality of 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2-19.9] with SCD transplantation, 20.5% (95% CI 16.1-24.6) with ECD transplantation and 24.6% (95% CI 19.4-29.5) with continued dialysis. Relative mortality risk was increased in the first months after transplantation compared with dialysis, with equivalent risk levels reached earlier with SCD than ECD transplantation in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that older patients might gain a survival benefit with SCD transplantation versus dialysis, but any survival benefit with ECD transplantation versus dialysis may be small.

Impact of donor lung quality on post-transplant recipient outcome in the Lung Allocation Score era in Eurotransplant - a historical prospective study.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an impact of donation rates on the quality of lungs used for transplantation and whether donor lung quality affects post-transplant outcome in the current Lung Allocation Score era. All consecutive adult LTx performed in Eurotransplant (ET) between January 2012 and December 2016 were included (N = 3053). Donors used for LTx in countries with high donation rate were younger (42% vs. 33% ≤45 years, P < 0.0001), were less often smokers (35% vs. 46%, P < 0.0001), had more often clear chest X-rays (82% vs. 72%, P < 0.0001), had better donor oxygenation ratios (20% vs. 26% with PaO2 /FiO2  ≤ 300 mmHg, P < 0.0001), and had better lung donor score values (LDS; 28% vs. 17% with LDS = 6, P < 0.0001) compared with donors used for LTx in countries with low donation rate. Survival rates for the groups LDS = 6 and ≥7 at 5 years were 69.7% and 60.9% (P = 0.007). Lung donor quality significantly impacts on long-term patient survival. Countries with a low donation rate are more oriented to using donor lungs with a lesser quality compared to countries with a high donation rate. Instead of further stretching donor eligibility criteria, the full potential of the donor pool should be realized.

Repeated kidney re-transplantation-the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis.

In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.

Outcome of Liver Transplant Patients With High Urgent Priority: Are We Doing the Right Thing?

BACKGROUND: About 15% of liver transplantations (LTs) in Eurotransplant are currently performed in patients with a high-urgency (HU) status. Patients who have acute liver failure (ALF) or require an acute retransplantation can apply for this status. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of this prioritization. METHODS: Patients who were listed for LT with HU status from January 1, 2007, up to December 31, 2015, were included. Waiting list and posttransplantation outcomes were evaluated and compared with a reference group of patients with laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (labMELD) scores ≥40 (MELD 40+). RESULTS: In the study period, 2299 HU patients were listed for LT. Ten days after listing, 72% of all HU patients were transplanted and 14% of patients deceased. Patients with HU status for primary ALF showed better patient survival at 3 years (69%) when compared with patients in the MELD 40+ group (57%). HU patients with labMELD ≥45 and patients with HU status for acute retransplantation and labMELD ≥35 have significantly inferior survival at 3-year follow-up of 46% and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current prioritization for patients with ALF is highly effective in preventing mortality on the waiting list. Although patients with HU status for ALF have good outcomes, survival is significantly inferior for patients with a high MELD score or for retransplantations. With the current scarcity of livers in mind, we should discuss whether potential recipients for a second or even third retransplantation should still receive absolute priority, with HU status, over other recipients with an expected, substantially better prognosis after transplantation.

The Effect of Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate Solution and University of Wisconsin Solution: An Analysis of the Eurotransplant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Both University of Wisconsin (UW) and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solutions are currently used in the Eurotransplant region for preservation of liver allografts. Previous studies on their effect have led to a lot of discussion. This study aims to compare the effect of HTK and UW on graft survival. METHODS: First liver transplantations in recipients 18 years or older from January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2016, were included. Graft survival was compared for livers preserved with HTK and UW at 30 days, 1, 3, and 5 years. Multivariable analysis of risk factors was performed and outcome was adjusted for important confounders. RESULTS: Of all 10 628 first liver transplantations, 8176 (77%) and 2452 (23%) were performed with livers preserved with HTK and UW, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in graft survival between HTK and UW at 30 days (89% vs 93%, P=<0.001), 1 year (75% vs 82%, P=<0.001), 3 years (67% vs 72%, P<0.001), and at 5 years (60% vs 67%, P<0.001). No significant differences in outcome were observed in separate analyses of Germany or non-German countries. In multivariable analysis, UW was associated with a decreased risk of graft loss at 30 days (HR 0.772, P=0.002) and at 1 year (0.847 (0.757-0.947). When adjusted for risk factors, no differences in long term outcome could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: Because the use of preservation fluids is clustered geographically, differences in outcome by preservation fluids are strongly affected by regional differences in donor and recipient characteristics. When adjusted for risk factors, no differences in graft survival exist between transplantations performed with livers preserved with either HTK or UW.

Heart re-transplantation in Eurotransplant.

Internationally 3% of the donor hearts are distributed to re-transplant patients. In Eurotransplant, only patients with a primary graft dysfunction (PGD) within 1 week after heart transplantation (HTX) are indicated for high urgency listing. The aim of this study is to provide evidence for the discussion on whether these patients should still be allocated with priority. All consecutive HTX performed in the period 1981-2015 were included. Multivariate Cox' model was built including: donor and recipient age and gender, ischaemia time, recipient diagnose, urgency status and era. The study population included 18 490 HTX, of these 463 (2.6%) were repeat transplants. The major indications for re-HTX were cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (50%), PGD (26%) and acute rejection (21%). In a multivariate model, compared with first HTX hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval for repeat HTX were 2.27 (1.83-2.82) for PGD, 2.24 (1.76-2.85) for acute rejection and 1.22 (1.00-1.48) for CAV (P < 0.0001). Outcome after cardiac re-HTX strongly depends on the indication for re-HTX with acceptable outcomes for CAV. In contrast, just 47.5% of all hearts transplanted in patients who were re-transplanted for PGD still functioned at 1-month post-transplant. Alternative options like VA-ECMO should be first offered before opting for acute re-transplantation.

Lung allocation score: the Eurotransplant model versus the revised US model - a cross-sectional study.

Both Eurotransplant (ET) and the US use the lung allocation score (LAS) to allocate donor lungs. In 2015, the US implemented a new algorithm for calculating the score while ET has fine-tuned the original model using business rules. A comparison of both models in a contemporary patient cohort was performed. The rank positions and the correlation between both scores were calculated for all patients on the active waiting list in ET. On February 6th 2017, 581 patients were actively listed on the lung transplant waiting list. The median LAS values were 32.56 and 32.70 in ET and the US, respectively. The overall correlation coefficient between both scores was 0.71. Forty-three per cent of the patients had a < 2 point change in their LAS. US LAS was more than two points lower for 41% and more than two points higher for 16% of the patients. Median ranks and the 90th percentiles for all diagnosis groups did not differ between both scores. Implementing the 2015 US LAS model would not significantly alter the current waiting list in ET.

Donor risk indices in pancreas allocation in the Eurotransplant region.

Pancreas donor selection and recognition are important to cope with increasing organ shortage. We aim to show that the PDRI is more useful than the P-PASS to predict acceptance and should thus be preferred over P-PASS. Eurotransplant donors from 2004 until 2014 were included in this study. PDRI logistical factors were set to reference to purely reflect donor quality (PDRI donor ). PDRI and P-PASS association with allocation outcome was studied using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Regional differences in donor quality were also investigated. Of the 10 444 pancreata that were reported, 6090 (58.3%) were accepted and 2947 (28.2%) were transplanted. We found that P-PASS was inferior to PDRIdonor in its ability to predict organ reporting, acceptance, and transplantation: AUC 0.63, 0.67 and 0.73 for P-PASS vs. 0.78, 0.79 and 0.84 for PDRIdonor , respectively. Furthermore, there were significant differences in donor quality among different Eurotransplant countries, both in reported donors and in transplanted organs. PDRI is a powerful predictor of allocation outcome and should be preferred over P-PASS. Proper donor selection and recognition, and possibly a more liberal approach toward inferior quality donors, may increase donation and transplant rates.

Impact of dynamic changes in MELD score on survival after liver transplantation - a Eurotransplant registry analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: With restricted numbers of available organs, futility in liver transplantation has to be avoided. The concept of dynamic changes in MELD score (DeltaMELD) has previously been shown to be a simple tool to identify patients with the greatest risk of death after transplantation. Aim was to validate this concept with the Eurotransplant (ET) database. METHODS: A retrospective registry analysis was performed on all patients listed for liver transplantation within ET between 2006 and 2011. Patients <18 years of age, acute liver failure, malignancy and patients listed for retransplantation were excluded. Influence of MELD at listing (MELDon), MELD at transplantation (MELDoff), DeltaMELD, age, sex, underlying disease and time on the waiting list on overall survival after liver transplantation were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 16 821 patients were listed for liver transplantation, 8096 met the inclusion criteria. Age, MELD on and DeltaMELD showed significant influence on survival on the waiting list. Age and DeltaMELD showed influence on survival after liver transplantation, with DeltaMELD>10 showing a 1.6-fold increased risk of death. CONCLUSION: The concept of DeltaMELD was validated in a large, prospective data set. It provides a simple tool to identify patients with increased risk of death after liver transplantation and might help improve long-term results.

Pediatric heart allocation and transplantation in Eurotransplant.

Pediatric heart allocation in Eurotransplant (ET) has evolved over the past decades to better serve patients and improve utilization. Pediatric heart transplants (HT) account for 6% of the annual transplant volume in ET. Death rates on the pediatric heart transplant waiting list have decreased over the years, from 25% in 1997 to 18% in 2011. Within the first year after listing, 32% of all infants (<12 months), 20% of all children aged 1-10 years, and 15% of all children aged 11-15 years died without having received a heart transplant. Survival after transplantation improved over the years, and in almost a decade, the 1-year survival went from 83% to 89%, and the 3-year rates increased from 81% to 85%. Improved medical management of heart failure patients and the availability of mechanical support for children have significantly improved the prospects for children on the heart transplant waiting list.

Is it time for a cardiac allocation score? First results from the Eurotransplant pilot study on a survival benefit-based heart allocation.

BACKGROUND: Patients awaiting heart transplantation in Eurotransplant are prioritized by waiting time and medical urgency. To reduce mortality, the introduction of post-transplant survival in an allocation model based on the concept of survival benefit might be more appropriate. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of the heart failure survival score (HFSS), the Seattle heart failure model (SHFM), the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) model, and the index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT) score for predicting mortality. METHODS: The HFSS, SHFM, the adapted SHFM, and the INTERMACS model were evaluated for predicting waiting list mortality among heart transplant candidates, and the IMPACT score was tested for predicting post-transplant mortality in separate Cox regression models. Included were the 448 adult heart transplant candidates listed for an urgent status between October 2010 and June 2011 in Eurotransplant. A cardiac allocation score (CAS) was calculated based on the estimated survival times as predicted by the scores. All analyses were performed for the total cohort and separately for ventricular assist device (VAD) and non-VAD patients. RESULTS: Mortality on the waiting list could significantly be predicted in the non-VAD cohort by HFSS (p = 0.005) and SHFM (p < 0.0001) and after transplant by IMPACT (p < 0.0001). None of the tested scores could predict mortality among VAD-supported patients. CONCLUSIONS: In non-VAD patients, the HFSS, SHFM, and IMPACT provide accurate risk stratification. Further studies will reveal whether these models should be considered as the basis for a new heart allocation policy in Eurotransplant.

Donor scoring system for heart transplantation and the impact on patient survival.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to design and validate a heart donor score that reflects experts' perceived risk of allograft failure. METHODS: All heart donors reported to Eurotransplant between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2008 (N = 4,110) were used to create a donor score. Based on observed discard rates and using multivariate regression, points were assigned for the following donor factors: age; cause of death; body mass index (BMI); diabetes mellitus (DM); duration of ICU stay; compromised history (drug, abuse, sepsis, meningitis, malignancy, HBsAg(+) or anti-HCV(+)); hypertension; cardiac arrest; echocardiography; coronary angiogram; serum sodium; and noradrenaline and dopamine/dobutamine doses. The donor score was obtained by adding all points. All heart donors reported to Eurotransplant in 2009 were included to validate the score (N = 885). RESULTS: All donor factors, except BMI, DM and duration of ICU stay, significantly predicted discard. Based on the median value of the score, donors were classified into low-risk donors (LRDs: ≤16 points) and high-risk donors (HRDs: ≥17 points). In the validation set, discard rates were significantly different when comparing HRDs (35%) and LRDs (7%) (p < 0.0001). In addition, the heart donor score was significantly associated with 3-year survival: LRD 81.5% vs HRD 70.0% (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The heart donor score accurately reflects the likelihood of organ acceptance and predicts long-term patient mortality. Application of this score at time of donor reporting may facilitate donor risk assessment and allow for more appropriate matching of extended criteria donor hearts.

Evaluation of the lung allocation score in highly urgent and urgent lung transplant candidates in Eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of the lung allocation score (LAS) on mortality among highly urgent (HU) and urgent (U) lung transplant (LTx) candidates in Eurotransplant (ET) and to identify useful additional parameters (LASplus). METHODS: All adult LTx candidates for whom a first request for HU or U status was made in 2008 in ET were included (N = 317). Patients were followed until LTx, death on the waiting list (WL), delisting, or closure date (i.e., January 10, 2010). The relationship between the LAS/LASplus and waiting list, post-transplant, and overall mortality was assessed with a multivariate regression model. The LAS and LASplus were decomposed into their basic waitlist and post-transplant components. RESULTS: Waiting list mortality rate was 22% and 1-year post-transplant mortality rate was 34%. The waitlist component of the LASplus was significantly associated with waiting list mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, p = 0.021), whereas the LAS was not (p = 0.063). The post-transplant components of both scores were significantly associated with 1-year post-transplant mortality (LAS: HR 2.69, p = 0.005; LASplus: HR 2.55, p = 0.004). Both scores strongly predicted overall mortality (LAS: HR 1.65, p = 0.008; LASplus: HR 1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: LAS accurately predicts overall mortality in critically ill transplant candidates and should therefore be considered as the basis for a new lung allocation policy in ET. An adjustment of the original LAS may be indicated to accurately predict waiting list mortality.

Defining an extended criteria donor lung: an empirical approach based on the Eurotransplant experience.

The aim of this study was to design and validate a lung donor score that reflects experts' perceived risk of allograft failure. All lung donors reported to Eurotransplant from 1999 to 2007 [N=6080] were used to create a lung donor score. Based on observed discard rates and using multivariate regression, points were assigned for six preprocurement donor variables. Donors reported in 2008 were used to validate the score [N=751]. All the six factors significantly predicted discard; as an example, the following donor with points: age 55-59years: 2; compromised history: 4; smoking: 2; shadow on chest X-ray: 2; purulent secretion during bronchoscopy: 2; and Pao(2) /Fio(2) ratio below 300mmHg: 3. Discard rates for donors with a lung donor score of 6 points (class 1) was 18%, while 36% and 54% of the donors with a score of 7-8 (class 2) and 9+(class 3) were discarded (P<0.001), respectively. In addition, the donor lung score was significantly associated with 1-year survival: class 1: 91%; class 2: 80%; and class 3: 72% (P=0.017). The lung donor score accurately reflects the likelihood of organ acceptance and predicts patient mortality, and its application at time of donor reporting may facilitate donor risk assessment and patient selection.

Waiting for a thoracic transplant in Eurotransplant.

The prospects of patients on the thoracic waiting list are governed by the chance of receiving an organ in time and by the outcome of the transplantation. The former probability is determined by a triad of disease severity, resource size and allocation rules. The aim of this study was to provide an objective description of the distributional effects of the thoracic allocation system in Eurotransplant. It appears that the interpretation of waiting-list outflow indicators is not straightforward and that it is difficult to assess the fairness of an organ allocation system in the framework of changing donor-organ availability. The timing of listing for heart transplantation can substantially be improved; whether this is also true for lung transplantation cannot be determined from the available data. Allocation schemes cannot solve the problem of organ shortage; a shift of attention toward collaboration with procurement professionals is needed.

The role of an organ exchange organization in increasing split-liver transplantation.

Eurotransplant introduced a new allocation policy in January 2003 to increase the number of liver transplants by offering centers an incentive to split deceased donor livers for 2 recipients. Centers were granted the option of choosing a suitable recipient for the second portion of the split liver from their own waiting list and, to increase the awareness for liver splitting, centers were asked by the Eurotransplant duty officer whether they would consider splitting whenever a liver that met the 50/50 rule (donor age <50 and weight >50 kg) was available. During the first year after implementing this policy, split-liver transplants increased by 67% and again by 10% during the second year (a total of 288 transplants in the 2-year period). The number of pediatric recipients of a split liver increased from 44 in 2002 to 76 in 2004 and the pediatric waiting list decreased by 36% (73 to 47) one year after implementation of the new policy. More than 95% of the 288 split liver transplants involved one adult and one pediatric recipient. Nearly three-quarters of the split liver transplants were performed at 3 centers with both a pediatric and adult waiting list and with surgeons experienced in the procedure. We conclude that Eurotransplant's liver allocation policy has increased the number of liver transplants, particularly among children, by rewarding centers that split livers for transplantation to 2 recipients without prolonging cold ischemia time. The number of centers that could benefit from this policy will increase as more surgeons are trained in the splitting procedure.

Three-year survival rates for all consecutive heart-only and lung-only transplants performed in Eurotransplant, 1997-1999.

The definition of proper patient selection criteria remains a prominent item in constant need of attention. While the concept of gathering evidence in order to determine practice continues to be hopelessly ambiguous, it can never be emphasized too much that these univariate results are just a first foray into analysing predictors of survival; all following results should be regarded and interpreted in this perspective. HEART TRANSPLANT SURVIVAL: The 3-year survival rate for heart transplant recipients under age 16 was 83% versus 72% for adult recipients. Acutely retransplanted adult heart recipients had a 3-year survival rate of 36% compared with 72% for recipients of a first heart allograft. Patients suffering from DCM had the best survival rates at 3 years (74%) compared with patients suffering from CAD (70%) or from another end-stage heart disease (67%). With advancing age of the adult recipient, the mortality risk increased. Patients aged 16-40 had a 3-year survival rate of 77%, compared with 74%, 70% and 61% for transplant recipients aged 41-55, 56-65 and over age 65, respectively. The 3-year survival rates for adult recipients transplanted with an heart allograft from a donor aged under 16 or between 16-44 were 78% and 74%, compared with 66% and 63% for donors aged 45-55 and over 55, respectively. The 3-year survival rates for recipients of hearts with cold ischemic times under 2 hours, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and more than 6 hours were 74%, 75%, 70%, 65%, 54% and 40%, respectively. Transplanting a female donor heart into a male recipient was associated with the worst prognosis: the 3-year survival rates were 73%, 71%, 66% and 76%, respectively, for the donor/recipient groups male/male, male/female, female/male and female/female, respectively. When the donor-to-recipient body weight ratio was below 0.8, the 3-year survival rate was 64%, compared to 72% for weight-matched pairs and 74% for patients who received a heart from an oversized donor (p=0.004). Better survival rates were obtained for better HLA-matched transplants. The 3-year survival rates were 75%, 89%, 78%, 78%, 69%, 72%, and 71% for HLA-A,-B,-DR zero, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mismatched groups, respectively (p=0.04). Survival was significantly associated with the CMV serologic status of the donor and recipient; the 3-year survival rates were: D+/R+, 71%; D+/R-, 69%; D- R-, 76%; and D-/R+, 76% (p=0.04). Patients in an ICU had a 3-year survival rate of 62%, compared to 72% for patients in a general ward and 74% for outpatients (p<0.0001). Patients that were on a VAD and there-upon transplanted had a 3-year survival rate of 65%, compared to 73% for patients without a VAD (p=0.004). Being on a ventilator was a major risk factor for death after transplantation; patients on ventilator support at the time of the transplant had a 3-year survival rate of 52% compared to 73% for the other patients (p<0.0001). LUNG TRANSPLANT SURVIVAL: The 3-year survival rate for children (73%) appeared to be better than the adult rate (61%; p=0.8). Adult lung transplant survival was significantly worse in the case of a repeat lung transplant; a 3-year retransplant survival rate of 42% was obtained compared with 61% for first transplants (p=0.049). With respect to the underlying end-stage lung disease, no statistically significant difference in long-term survival could be detected in this cohort. The 3-year survival rates were: 62% for COPD/Emphysema, 70% for CF, 58% for IPF, 64% for Alpha-1 ATD and 56% for PPH (p=0.2). Our data demonstrated no effect of the recipient's age on long-term lung transplant survival, except for 2 senior patients in this cohort. At 3-years the survival rates for recipients aged 16-40, 41-55 and 56-65 were 65%, 60% and 62%, respectively (p=0.05). The 3-year survival rates for transplants performed with lungs from donors aged under 16, 16-44, 45-55 and over 55 was 57%, 64%, 55% and 62%, respectively (p=0.1) No association between the duration of cold ischemic time and 3-year survival was observed; under 3 hours, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and over 6 hours of ischemia resulted in 3-year survival rates of 53%, 59%, 64%, 68% and 57%, respectively (p=0.2). Early posttransplant outcome tended to be better for gender-matched transplants, while transplanting a female donor lung into a male recipient was associated with the worst prognosis. The 3-year survival rates were 65% for male/male, 63% for male/female, 48% for female/male and 61% for female/female (p=0.009). No effect of donor-to-recipient weight match was observed in this Eurotransplant cohort; when the donor-to-recipient weight ratio was below 0.8, the 3-year survival rate was 57%, compared with 59% for weight-matched pairs and 64% for patients who received a lung from an oversized donor (p=0.5). Long-term survival after lung transplantation was influenced by HLA matching. The 3-year survival rates were 100%, 68%, 70%, 65%, 54% and 55% for the HLA-A,-B,-DR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mismatched groups, respectively (p=0.06). A donor CMV+ and recipient CMV- match was a risk factor for long-term mortality, with 3-year survival rates of 56% for D+/R+, 55% for D+/R-, 71% for D-/R- and 62% for D-/R+ transplants (p=0.046). En-bloc transplantation of both lungs yielded worse early results, but the 3-year survival rates for patients who underwent single (60%), bilateral sequential double lung (63%) and en-bloc double lung transplantation (56%) were not different (p=0.2). Ventilator dependency was associated with a significantly reduced survival at 3 years. Patients on a ventilator support at the time of the transplant had a 3-year survival rate of 48% compared with 63% for other patients (p=0.006).