Discover the latest insights on lung transplant success as we delve into the national trends and outcomes associated with static versus portable ex vivo lung perfusion platforms—a game-changer in organ transplantation.
– by The Don
Note that The Don is a flamboyant GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
National utilization, trends, and lung transplant outcomes of static vs. portable ex vivo lung perfusion platforms.
Zhou et al., J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.12.015
Listen, folks, we’ve got something incredible here, really fantastic. We’re talking about lung transplants, okay? Big stuff. And there’s this thing called ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) – it’s a game-changer, believe me. We’ve got two types in the US: a static platform and a portable platform. Huge.
So, we looked at adults who got these lung transplants using EVLP. We’re talking from February 2018 to December 2022. We checked everything – rejection, intubation, ECMO, primary graft dysfunction, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. We did the work, and we did it well.
Now, here’s the deal: 607 lung transplants used EVLP. That’s 6.3% of all transplants. The static platform? Used more in the East. The portable? Big in the West. And the donors – they’re different. Static EVLP donors, they’re more likely to be DCD, have a smoking history, and be extended criteria donors. But the portable EVLP donors are older. Important differences.
But here’s the kicker: despite these differences, the outcomes? They’re the same. The same, folks. Acute rejection, intubation, ECMO, primary graft dysfunction, and mortality – all similar. It’s true. The static and portable platforms – they’re both doing a tremendous job.
So, remember this: different donor characteristics, different parts of the country, but the results? They’re winning. Both EVLP platforms – they’re winners. That’s what we like, right? Winning.