ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2024
National utilization, trends, and lung transplant outcomes of static versus portable ex vivo lung perfusion platforms.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of ex vivo lung perfusion evaluation on donation after circulatory death in lung transplantation.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Back-to-base Versus In-transit Machine Perfusion in Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation: Insights From a National Registry.Transplantation direct · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ventilation at 10 °C as the optimal storage condition for donor lungs in a murine model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Revisiting optimal static lung preservation techniques in an era when machine perfusion is transforming organ recovery: thermoregulation is still an important concept.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Outcomes of lung transplants utilizing donors from outside the continental United States.JHLT open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared utilization and outcomes of the 2 widely utilized ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) platforms in the United States: a static platform and a portable platform.
methodsAdult (age 18 years or older) bilateral lung-only transplants utilizing EVLP between February 28, 2018, and December 31, 2022, in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Predischarge acute rejection, intubation at 72 hours posttransplant, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours posttransplant, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours posttransplant, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality were evaluated using multivariable regressions.
resultsOverall, 607 (6.3%) lung transplants during the study period used EVLP (51.2% static, 48.8% portable). Static EVLP was primarily utilized in the eastern United States, whereas portable EVLP was primarily utilized in the western United States. Static EVLP donors were more likely to be donation after circulatory death (33.4% vs 26.0%; P = .005), have a >20 pack-year smoking history (13.5% vs 6.5%; P = .005), and be extended criteria donors (92.3% vs 85.0%; P = .013), whereas portable EVLP donors were more likely to be older than age 55 years (14.2% vs 8.0%; P = .02). Transplants utilizing the static and portable platforms had similar risk of acute rejection, intubation at 72 hours, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours, and posttransplant mortality at 30 days and 1 year (all P values > .05).
conclusionsThe static and portable platforms had significant differences in donor characteristics and geographic distributions of utilization. Despite this, posttransplant survival was similar between the 2 EVLP platforms.
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.