Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30444805›Full record

ArticleTransplantation2019

A Propensity-matched Survival Analysis: Do Simultaneous Liver-lung Transplant Recipients Need a Liver?

Kyle Freischlag, Brian Ezekian, Paul M Schroder, Michael S Mulvihill, Morgan L Cox, Matthew G Hartwig, Stuart Knechtle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. The United States Experience With Combined Lung+Liver Transplantation.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: An update from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kyle FreischlagSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Brian EzekianDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Paul M SchroderDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Michael S MulvihillDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Morgan L CoxDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Matthew G HartwigDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Stuart KnechtleDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002555 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI EDELMAN, DAVID · 2018 to 2022
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is debate whether simultaneous lung-liver transplant (LLT) long-term outcomes warrant allocation of 2 organs to a single recipient. We hypothesized that LLT recipients would have improved posttransplant survival compared with matched single-organ lung recipients with an equivalent degree of liver dysfunction.

methodsThe Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing STAR file was queried for adult candidates for LLT and isolated lung transplantation from 2006 to 2016. Waitlist mortality and transplant odds were calculated for all candidates. Donor and recipient demographic characteristics were compiled and compared. The LLT recipients were matched 1:2 with a nearest neighbor method to single-organ lung recipients. Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank test compared long-term survival between groups. Univariate regression was used to calculate the association of LLT and mortality within 6 months of transplant. A proportional hazards model was used to calculate risk-adjusted mortality after 6 months posttransplantation.

resultsThirty-eight LLT patients were matched to 75 single-organ lung recipients. After matching, no differences in baseline demographics or liver function were observed between cohorts. Length of stay was significantly longer in LLT recipients compared to isolated lung recipients (45.89 days vs 22.44 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in survival probability between LLT and isolated lung transplant (1 y, 89.5% vs 86.7%; 5 y, 67.0% vs 64.6%; P = 0.20).

conclusionsAfter matching for patient characteristics and level of liver dysfunction, survival in simultaneous LLT was comparable to isolated lung transplantation. Although this population is unique, the clinical picture prompting liver transplant is not clear. National guidelines to better elucidate patient selection are needed.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreAdultEnd Stage Liver DiseaseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft SurvivalHumansLiverLiver TransplantationLung TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaPatient SelectionPrognosisRespiratory Insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID30444805
PMCPMC6520207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.