Same-teams versus different-teams for long distance lung procurement: A cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In an era of broader lung sharing, different-team transplantation (DT, procuring team from nonrecipient center) may streamline procurement logistics; however, safety and cost implications of DT remain unclear. To understand whether DT represents a safe means to reduce lung transplant (LTx) costs, we compared posttransplant outcomes and lung procurement and index hospitalization costs among matched DT and same-team transplantation (ST, procuring team from recipient center) cohorts at a single, high-volume institution. We hypothesized that DT reduces costs without compromising outcomes after LTx. METHODS: Patients who underwent DT between January 2016 to May 2020 were included. A cohort of patients who underwent ST was matched 1:3 (nearest neighbor) based on recipient age, disease group, lung allocation score, history of previous LTx, and bilateral versus single LTx. Posttransplant outcomes and costs were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 23 DT and 69 matched ST recipients were included. Perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival were similar between groups. Compared with ST, DT was associated with similar lung procurement and index hospitalization costs (DT vs ST, procurement: median $65,991 vs $58,847, P = .16; index hospitalization: median $294,346 vs $322,189, P = .7). On average, procurement costs increased $3263 less per 100 nautical miles for DT versus ST; DT offered cost-savings when travel distances exceeded approximately 363 nautical miles. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, DT and ST were associated with similar post-LTx outcomes; DT offered cost-savings with increasing procurement travel distance. These findings suggest that DT may mitigate logistical and financial burdens of lung procurement; however, further investigation in a multi-institutional cohort is warranted.

Textbook surgical outcome in lung transplantation: Analysis of a US national registry.

INTRO: Textbook surgical outcome (TO) is a novel composite quality measure in lung transplantation (LTx). Compared to 1-year survival metrics, TO may better differentiate center performance, and motivate improvements in care. To understand the feasibility of implementing this metric, we defined TO in LTx using US national data, and evaluated its ability to predict post-transplant outcomes and differentiate center performance. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent isolated LTx between 2016 and 2019 were included. TO was defined as freedom from post-transplant length of stay > 30 days, 90-day mortality, intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 h post-transplant, post-transplant ventilator support lasting ≥5 days, postoperative airway dehiscence, inpatient dialysis, pre-discharge acute rejection, and grade 3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 h. Recipient and donor characteristics and post-transplant outcomes were compared between patients who achieved and failed TO. RESULTS: Of 8959 lung transplant recipients, 4664 (52.1%) achieved TO. Patient and graft survival were improved among patients who achieved TO (both log-rank P < .0001). Among 62 centers, adjusted rates of TO ranged from 27.0% to 72.4% reflecting a wide variability in center-level performance. CONCLUSION: TO defined using national data may represent a novel composite metric to guide quality improvement in LTx across US transplant centers. SUMMARY: In this study we defined textbook outcome (TO) for lung transplantation (LTx) using US national data. We found that achievement of TO was associated with improved post-transplant survival, and wide variability in center-level LTx performance. These findings suggest that TO could be readily implemented to compare quality of care among US LTx centers.

Lung transplantation after ex vivo lung perfusion versus static cold storage: An institutional cost analysis.

Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a novel lung preservation strategy that facilitates the use of marginal allografts; however, it is more expensive than static cold storage (SCS). To understand how preservation method might affect postoperative costs, we compared outcomes and index hospitalization costs among matched EVLP and SCS preserved lung transplant (LTx) recipients at a single, high-volume institution. A total of 22 EVLP and 66 matched SCS LTx recipients were included; SCS grafts were further stratified as either standard-criteria (SCD) or extended-criteria donors (ECD). Median total preservation time was 857, 409, and 438 min for EVLP, SCD, and ECD lungs, respectively (p < .0001). EVLP patients had similar perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival compared to SCS SCD and ECD recipients. Excluding device-specific costs, total direct variable costs were similar among EVLP, SCD, and ECD recipients (median $200,404, vs. $154,709 vs. $168,334, p =  .11). The median direct contribution margin was positive for EVLP recipients, and similar to that for SCD and ECD graft recipients (all p > .99). These findings demonstrate that the use of EVLP was profitable at an institutional level; however, further investigation is needed to better understand the financial implications of EVLP in facilitating donor pool expansion in an era of broader lung sharing.

Lung transplantation using allografts with more than 8 hours of ischemic time: A single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Six hours was historically regarded as the limit of acceptable ischemic time for lung allografts. However, broader sharing of donor lungs often necessitates use of allografts with ischemic time >6 hours. We characterized the association between ischemic time ≥8 hours and outcomes after lung transplantation using a contemporary cohort from a high-volume institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary isolated bilateral lung transplantation between 1/2016 and 5/2020 were included. Patients bridged to transplant with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, and ex-vivo perfusion cases were excluded. Recipients were stratified by total allograft ischemic time <8 hours (standard) vs ≥8 hours (long). Perioperative outcomes and post-transplant survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 358 patients, 95 (26.5%) received long ischemic time (≥8 hours) lungs. Long ischemic time recipients were more likely to be male and have donation after circulatory death donors than standard ischemic time recipients. On unadjusted analysis, long and standard ischemic time recipients had similar survival, and similar rates of grade 3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 hours, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation post-transplant, acute rejection within 30 days, reintubation, and post-transplant length of stay. After adjustment, long and standard ischemic time recipients had comparable risks of mortality or graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: In a modern cohort, use of lung allografts with "long" ischemic time ≥8 hours were associated with acceptable perioperative outcomes and post-transplant survival. Further investigation is required to better understand how broader use impacts post-lung transplant outcomes and the implications for smarter sharing under an evolving national allocation policy.

The Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after kidney transplantation (KTx) remain limited by delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection. Non-invasive biomarkers may help identify patients at increased risk for these events. We examined the association between the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), a novel inflammatory biomarker, and outcomes after KTx and evaluated its ability to predict post-transplant prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients who underwent primary KTx at our institution between 2016-2019 were included. SII was calculated from pre-transplant complete blood counts as the ratio of the neutrophil count to the lymphocyte count multiplied by the platelet count. The cutoff between high and low SII was determined by maximizing the area under the curve. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to identify factors associated with DGF and patient, rejection-free, and graft survival respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 378 KTx recipients were included; 224 (59.3%) had high SII. On unadjusted analysis, high SII was associated with reduced odds of DGF, and improved patient and rejection-free survival. After adjustment, high SII was independently associated with improved patient survival alone. Multivariable models incorporating SII performed well for the prediction of DGF (c-statistic=0.755) and patient survival (c-statistic=0.786), though rejection-free survival was more difficult to predict (c-statistic=0.635). CONCLUSION: SII demonstrated limited utility as an independent predictor of outcomes after KTx. However, in combination with other clinically relevant parameters, SII is a useful predictor of post-KTx prognosis. Validation of this novel inflammatory biomarker in a multi-institutional study is needed to further elucidate its practical applications in transplantation.

Lung transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Safely navigating the new "normal".

In the United States, an overall national decline in organ transplants has accompanied the substantial burden of COVID-19. Amidst significant regional variations in COVID-19, lung transplantation (LTx) remains a critical life-saving operation. Our LTx practice during the early pandemic may provide a blueprint for managing LTx in an era of continued community prevalence. Patients who underwent LTx at our institution between March 1 and May 20, 2020 were included. Recipient, operative, and donor characteristics were compared to those from our program in 2019, and COVID-19 testing practices were evaluated for March, April, and May to understand how our practice adapted to the pandemic. Our program performed 36 LTx, 33% more than the same period in 2019. Recipient, operative, and donor characteristics during COVID-19 were similar to those in 2019. By April 1, all donors and recipients underwent pretransplant COVID-19 testing, all returning negative results. To date, no recipients have developed posttransplant COVID-19. At our institution, pretransplant COVID-19 testing, use of local donor lungs, and avoidance of donors from areas of increased community penetration supported a safe and effective LTx practice during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Continued follow-up is required to ensure the long-term safety of these newly transplanted patients.