TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative study of bronchial artery revascularization in lung transplantation
AU - Pettersson, Gösta B.
AU - Karam, Karam
AU - Thuita, Lucy
AU - Johnston, Douglas R.
AU - McCurry, Kenneth R.
AU - Kapadia, Samir R.
AU - Budev, Marie M.
AU - Avery, Robin K.
AU - Mason, David P.
AU - Murthy, Sudish C.
AU - Blackstone, Eugene H.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported, in part, by the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower and Family Endowed Chair in Cardiothoracic Research, James and Sharon Kennedy, the Slosburg Family Charitable Trust, Stephen and Saundra Spencer, and Martin Nielsen (to Dr Pettersson), and the Kenneth Gee and Paula Shaw, PhD, Chair in Heart Research (to Dr Blackstone).
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - Objective: Restoring dual blood supply to transplanted lungs by bronchial artery revascularization (BAR) remains controversial. We compared outcomes after lung transplantation performed with and without BAR. Methods: From December 2007 to July 2010, 283 patients underwent transplantation; 187 were 18 years or older, without previous or concomitant cardiac surgery. Of these patients, 27 underwent BAR in a pilot study to test success, safety, effectiveness, and teachability. A propensity score was generated to match BAR patients and 54 routine non-BAR patients. Follow-up was 1.3 ± 0.68 years. Results: BAR was angiographically successful in 26 (96%) of 27 patients. BAR and non-BAR patients had similar skin-to-skin time (P =.07) and postoperative hospital stays (P =.2), but more reoperations for bleeding (P =.002). Tracheostomy was performed in 9 (33%) of 27 BAR and 10 (19%) of 54 non-BAR patients (P =.2, log-rank). One BAR (3.7%) and 4 non-BAR (7.4%) patients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P =.7). Airway ischemia was observed in 1 BAR (3.7%) versus 12 non-BAR (22%) patients (P =.03); anastomotic intervention was required in no BAR versus 8 non-BAR (15%) patients (P =.04). Hospital mortality was 1 of 27 versus 2 of 54 (P =.9). BAR patients had lower early biopsy tissue rejection grades (P =.008) and fewer pulmonary (P <.04) and bloodstream (P <.02) infections. Forced 1-second expiratory volume was similar (P >.2); 3 BAR versus 9 non-BAR patients developed bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) (P =.14, log-rank). During follow-up, 4 BAR and 8 non-BAR patients died (P =.6, log-rank). Conclusions: BAR is safe, with comparable early outcomes. Benefits of BAR include reduced airway ischemia and complications, lower biopsy tissue grades, fewer infections, and delay of BOS. A multicenter study is needed to establish these benefits.
AB - Objective: Restoring dual blood supply to transplanted lungs by bronchial artery revascularization (BAR) remains controversial. We compared outcomes after lung transplantation performed with and without BAR. Methods: From December 2007 to July 2010, 283 patients underwent transplantation; 187 were 18 years or older, without previous or concomitant cardiac surgery. Of these patients, 27 underwent BAR in a pilot study to test success, safety, effectiveness, and teachability. A propensity score was generated to match BAR patients and 54 routine non-BAR patients. Follow-up was 1.3 ± 0.68 years. Results: BAR was angiographically successful in 26 (96%) of 27 patients. BAR and non-BAR patients had similar skin-to-skin time (P =.07) and postoperative hospital stays (P =.2), but more reoperations for bleeding (P =.002). Tracheostomy was performed in 9 (33%) of 27 BAR and 10 (19%) of 54 non-BAR patients (P =.2, log-rank). One BAR (3.7%) and 4 non-BAR (7.4%) patients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P =.7). Airway ischemia was observed in 1 BAR (3.7%) versus 12 non-BAR (22%) patients (P =.03); anastomotic intervention was required in no BAR versus 8 non-BAR (15%) patients (P =.04). Hospital mortality was 1 of 27 versus 2 of 54 (P =.9). BAR patients had lower early biopsy tissue rejection grades (P =.008) and fewer pulmonary (P <.04) and bloodstream (P <.02) infections. Forced 1-second expiratory volume was similar (P >.2); 3 BAR versus 9 non-BAR patients developed bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) (P =.14, log-rank). During follow-up, 4 BAR and 8 non-BAR patients died (P =.6, log-rank). Conclusions: BAR is safe, with comparable early outcomes. Benefits of BAR include reduced airway ischemia and complications, lower biopsy tissue grades, fewer infections, and delay of BOS. A multicenter study is needed to establish these benefits.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884417250&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884417250&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.030
DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 23820173
AN - SCOPUS:84884417250
SN - 0022-5223
VL - 146
SP - 894-900.e3
JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 4
ER -