Cited by 42Transplantation: Methods and OutcomesOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesOrgan Donation and Transplantation

Differential Outcomes With Early and Late Repeat Transplantation in the Era of the Lung Allocation Score

Open access
Osho, Asishana A., Castleberry, Anthony W., Snyder, Laurie D., Palmer, Scott M., Ganapathi, Asvin M., Hirji, Sameer A., Lin, Shu S., Davis, R. Duane +1 more·2014·The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

Background Rates of repeat lung transplantation have increased since implementation of the lung allocation score (LAS). The purpose of this study is to compare survival between repeat (ReTx) and primary (LTx) lung transplant recipients in the LAS era.Methods We extracted data from 9,270 LTx and 456 ReTx recipients since LAS implementation, from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Propensity scoring was used to match ReTx and LTx recipients. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared survival between LTx and ReTx groups, with and without stratification based on time between first and second transplant. Multivariable Cox models estimated predictors of survival in lung recipients.Results Comparing all ReTx to LTx demonstrates a survival advantage for LTx that is diminished with propensity score matching (p = 0.174). Considering LTx against ReTx greater than 90 days after the initial procedure, there are similar survival results (p < 0.067). In contrast, ReTx within 90 days was associated with a survival disadvantage that persisted despite matching (p = 0.011). In ReTx populations, factors conferring worse outcomes include intensive care unit admission, unilateral transplantation, poor functional status, and primary graft dysfunction as the indication for retransplantation (p < 0.05).Conclusions Late lung retransplantation appears to be as beneficial as primary transplantation in propensity-matched patients. However, survival is severely diminished in those retransplanted less than 90 days after primary transplantation. The utility of early retransplantation needs to be carefully weighed in light of risks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.06.036

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osho, A. A., Castleberry, A. W., Snyder, L. D., Palmer, S. M., Ganapathi, A. M., Hirji, S. A., Lin, S. S., Davis, R. D., & Hartwig, M. G.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Osho, Asishana A.
Venue
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
98
Issue
6
Pages
1914-1921
ISSN
0003-4975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966142500
Cited by
42
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Duke University Medical Center
  • National Institutes of Health Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (U01-HL088953)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
Keywords
lung allocation score, primary graft dysfunction, intensive care unit admission, functional status, transplant outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Graft Survival, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tissue and Organ Procurement, Prognosis, Registries, Reoperation, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, United States, Waiting Lists, Survival Rate, Proportional Hazards Models, Lung Transplantation, Treatment Outcome, Patient Selection, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Primary Graft Dysfunction, Young Adult, Propensity Score

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review