Article Text
Abstract
Introduction Lung graft allocation can be based on a score (Lung Allocation Score) as in the USA or sequential proposals combined with a discrete priority model as in France. We aimed to analyse the impact of allocation policy on the outcome of urgent lung transplantation (LT).
Methods US United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and French Cristal databases were retrospectively reviewed to analyse LT performed between 2007 and 2017. We analysed the mortality risk of urgent LT by fitting Cox models and adjusted Restricted Mean Survival Time. We then compared the outcome after urgent LT in the UNOS and Cristal groups using a propensity score matching.
Results After exclusion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema and redo LT, 3775 and 12 561 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in the USA while 600 and 2071 patients underwent urgent LT and non-urgent LT in France. In univariate analysis, urgent LT was associated with an HR for death of 1.24 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.48) in the Cristal group and 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.19) in the UNOS group. In multivariate analysis, the effect of urgent LT was attenuated and no longer statistically significant in the Cristal database (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.33)) while it remained constant and statistically significant in the UNOS database (HR 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.2)). Survival comparison of urgent LT patients between the two countries was significantly different in favour of the UNOS group (1-year survival rates 84.1% (80.9%–87.3%) vs 75.4% (71.8%–79.1%) and 3-year survival rates 66.3% (61.9%–71.1%) vs 62.7% (58.5%–67.1%), respectively).
Conclusion Urgent LT is associated with adverse outcome in the USA and in France with a better prognosis in the US score-based system taking post-transplant survival into account. This difference between two healthcare systems is multifactorial.
- Lung Transplantation
- Clinical Epidemiology
- Critical Care
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
X @no, @Michael_Harhay
Contributors AR guarantor
AR, RP and PM conceived the idea, drafted the manuscript and analysed the data. EC and MH provided the data, contributed to data interpretation and revised the manuscript. ES, EF and RD contributed to data interpretation and revised the manuscript. P-EF, PAT, YC, FLP-B, FT, JJ, PL, JC and LB revised the manuscript. All authors have seen and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.