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

Comprehensive outcomes after lung retransplantation: A single‐center review

Halloran, Kieran, Aversa, Meghan, Tinckam, Kathryn, Martinu, Tereza, Binnie, Matthew, Chaparro, Cecilia, Chow, Chung‐Wai, Waddell, Tom +7 more·2018·Clinical Transplantation

Abstract

Introduction: Lung retransplantation is an important therapy for a growing population of lung transplant recipients with graft failure, but detailed outcome data are lacking. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult lung retransplant in the Toronto Lung Transplant Program from 2001 to 2013 (n = 38). We analyzed the postoperative course, graft function, renal function, microbiology, donor‐specific antibodies (DSA), quality of life, and survival compared to a control cohort of primary transplant recipients matched for age and era. Results: Indication for retransplant was chronic lung allograft dysfunction in most retransplant recipients (35/38, 92%). The postoperative course was more complex after retransplant than primary (ventilation time, 8 vs 2 days, P < .01; ICU stay 14 vs 4 days, P < 0.01), and peak lung function was lower (FEV 1 2.2L vs 3L, P < .01). Quality of life scores were comparable, as were renal function, microbiology, and donor‐specific antibody formation. Median survival was 1988 days after primary and 1475 days after retransplant (P = .39). Conclusions: Lung retransplantation is associated with a more complex postoperative course and lower peak lung function, but the long‐term medical profile is similar to primary transplant. Lung retransplantation can be beneficial for carefully selected candidates with allograft failure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ctr.13281

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • ReTx accounted for only 3.9% of our total volume, which was lower than the 4-16% reported in previous single-center studies and the 4-6% reported in the ISHLT registry between 2005 and 2017.

    “Despite performing over 1000 lung transplants during the 18-year study period, ReTx accounted for only 3.9% of our total volume, which was lower than the 4–16% reported in previous single-center studies across the U.S., North America, and Europe,3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the 4–6% reported in the ISHLT registry between 2005 and 2017.5”
  • Our observed CLAD-free survival at 3 and 5 years following ReTx was comparable to prior reports.

    “Our observed CLAD-free survival at 3 and 5 years following ReTx was comparable to prior reports.8, 13”
  • Younger age, lower acute graft dysfunction, and longer interval between primary and ReTx have all been previously linked to ReTx survival differences.

    “These factors had all been previously linked to ReTx survival differences.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13”
  • Recipient age ≥55 years at the time of ReTx was significantly associated with decreased survival (adjusted HR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.39-5.02).

    “Recipient age ≥55 years at the time of ReTx was significantly associated with decreased survival (adjusted HR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.39–5.02)”
  • The lack of association between MV/ECMO, interval, surgical procedure and survival may be due to the characteristics of our cohort, which had substantially longer interval between transplants and consisted mostly of bilateral transplant procedures for both primary and retransplantation.

    “However, the lack of association may be due to the characteristics of our cohort which had substantially longer interval between transplants and consisted mostly of bilateral transplant procedures for both primary and retransplantation, both of which characteristics were reported to be associated with improved survival.3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halloran, K., Aversa, M., Tinckam, K., Martinu, T., Binnie, M., Chaparro, C., Chow, C., Waddell, T., McRae, K., Pierre, A., de Perrot, M., Yasufuku, K., Cypel, M., Keshavjee, S., & Singer, L. G.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Toronto Lung Transplant Program Toronto General Hospital University Health Network Toronto ON Canada
Corresponding author
Halloran, Kieran
Venue
Clinical Transplantation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
e13281-e13281
ISSN
  • 0902-0063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-0012
OpenAlex
W2799290510
Cited by
42
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 retransplantation, lung transplantation, chronic lung allograft dysfunction, graft failure, postoperative course, survival, donor-specific antibodies, quality of life, renal function
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Graft Rejection, Graft Survival, Humans, Lung Diseases, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Reoperation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Survival Rate, Lung Transplantation

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