ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2018
Improved survival in simultaneous lung-liver recipients and candidates in the modern era of lung allocation.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Progress in Combined Liver-lung Transplantation at a Single Center.Transplantation direct · 2023Article
- A Propensity-matched Survival Analysis: Do Simultaneous Liver-lung Transplant Recipients Need a Liver?Transplantation · 2019Article
- Lung transplantation: a review of the optimal strategies for referral and patient selection.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiver-lung transplantation (LLT) is a rare procedure performed for patients with end-stage liver and lung disease. The lung allocation score (LAS), introduced in 2005, guides lung allocation including those receiving LLT. However, the impact of the LAS on outcomes in LLT is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe OPTN/United Network for Organ Sharing STAR file was queried for LLT candidates and recipients from 1988 to 2016. Demographic characteristics before (historic) and after (modern) the LAS were compared. Survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.
resultsIn total, 167 candidates were listed for LLT, and 62 underwent LLT. The historic cohort had a higher FEV1% (48.22% versus 29.82%, P = 0.014), higher creatinine (1.22 versus 0.72, P < 0.001), and a higher percentage with pulmonary hypertension as the indication for transplantation (40% versus 0%, P = 0.003) compared with the modern cohort. LLT candidates in the historic cohort had a lower rate of transplant per 100 candidates (10.87 versus 33.33, P < 0.0001) and worse waitlist survival (1 y: 69.6% versus 80.9%, 3 y: 39.1% versus 66.8%, P = 0.004). Post-transplant survival was significantly lower in the historic cohort (1 y: 50.0% versus 82.7%, 5 y: 40.0% versus 69.0%, 10 y: 20.0% versus 55.5%, P = 0.0099).
conclusionsMost analyses of LLT have included patients before and after the introduction of the LAS. Our study shows that LLT candidates and recipients before the modern allocation system had distinct baseline characteristics and worse overall survival. Although many factors contributed to recent improved outcomes, these cohorts are significantly different and should be treated as such in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.