Advanced

Comparative outcome of double lung transplantation using conventional donor lungs and non-acceptable donor lungs reconditioned ex vivo.

Lindstedt Ingemansson, Sandra LU ; Hlebowicz, Joanna LU ; Koul, Bansi LU ; Wierup, Per LU ; Sjögren, Johan LU ; Gustafsson, Ronny LU ; Steen, Stig LU and Ingemansson, Richard LU (2010) In Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
Abstract
A method to evaluate and recondition lungs ex vivo has been tested on donor lungs that have been rejected for transplantation. In the present paper, we compare early postoperative course between the six patients who received reconditioned lungs and the patients who received conventional donor lungs during the same period of time. During 2006 and 2007, a total of 21 patients underwent double sequential lung transplantation at the University Hospital of Lund. Six of those patients received reconditioned lungs. The other 15 patients received conventional donor lungs for transplantation without reconditioning ex vivo. The results are presented as median and interquartile range. Time in intensive care unit (days) between recipients of... (More)
A method to evaluate and recondition lungs ex vivo has been tested on donor lungs that have been rejected for transplantation. In the present paper, we compare early postoperative course between the six patients who received reconditioned lungs and the patients who received conventional donor lungs during the same period of time. During 2006 and 2007, a total of 21 patients underwent double sequential lung transplantation at the University Hospital of Lund. Six of those patients received reconditioned lungs. The other 15 patients received conventional donor lungs for transplantation without reconditioning ex vivo. The results are presented as median and interquartile range. Time in intensive care unit (days) between recipients of reconditioned lungs [13 (5-24) days], and recipients of conventional donor lungs [7 (5-12) days], P=0.44. Total hospital stay after transplantation (days) between recipients of reconditioned lungs [52 (47-60) days] and recipients of conventional donor lungs [44 (37-48) days], P=0.9. Ex vivo lung evaluation and reconditioning might not prolong early postoperative course in double lung transplantation. However, given the small number of patients, there might be a failure to detect a difference between the two groups. Keywords: Double lung transplantation; Reconditioned lungs; Clinical outcome. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
publisher
European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
external identifiers
  • pmid:21123199
  • scopus:79551590730
ISSN
1569-9285
DOI
10.1510/icvts.2010.244830
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
2312f100-415b-4f97-931a-19f525124d92 (old id 1756829)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21123199?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2011-01-03 12:13:16
date last changed
2018-05-29 12:27:55
@article{2312f100-415b-4f97-931a-19f525124d92,
  abstract     = {A method to evaluate and recondition lungs ex vivo has been tested on donor lungs that have been rejected for transplantation. In the present paper, we compare early postoperative course between the six patients who received reconditioned lungs and the patients who received conventional donor lungs during the same period of time. During 2006 and 2007, a total of 21 patients underwent double sequential lung transplantation at the University Hospital of Lund. Six of those patients received reconditioned lungs. The other 15 patients received conventional donor lungs for transplantation without reconditioning ex vivo. The results are presented as median and interquartile range. Time in intensive care unit (days) between recipients of reconditioned lungs [13 (5-24) days], and recipients of conventional donor lungs [7 (5-12) days], P=0.44. Total hospital stay after transplantation (days) between recipients of reconditioned lungs [52 (47-60) days] and recipients of conventional donor lungs [44 (37-48) days], P=0.9. Ex vivo lung evaluation and reconditioning might not prolong early postoperative course in double lung transplantation. However, given the small number of patients, there might be a failure to detect a difference between the two groups. Keywords: Double lung transplantation; Reconditioned lungs; Clinical outcome.},
  author       = {Lindstedt Ingemansson, Sandra and Hlebowicz, Joanna and Koul, Bansi and Wierup, Per and Sjögren, Johan and Gustafsson, Ronny and Steen, Stig and Ingemansson, Richard},
  issn         = {1569-9285},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {11},
  publisher    = {European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery},
  series       = {Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery},
  title        = {Comparative outcome of double lung transplantation using conventional donor lungs and non-acceptable donor lungs reconditioned ex vivo.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2010.244830},
  year         = {2010},
}