ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
Use of a novel donor lung scoring system as a tool for increasing lung recovery for transplantation.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung transplantation in 2025: a narrative review of progress, challenges, and the road ahead.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- The addition of computed tomography (CT) findings maintains the predictive performance of an existing radiograph-based donor lung acceptability score.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a critical shortage of donor lungs for transplantation. We previously developed a parsimonious, highly discriminatory 9-variable Lung Donor (LUNDON) acceptability score. Here we assessed the utility of this score as a tool for improving lung recovery rates for transplantation.
methodsWe examined all brain-dead donors between 2014 and 2020 from 3 US organ procurement organizations and validated the score's predictive performance. We examined the trajectory of donors with low (<40) and high (>60) initial LUNDON scores, their corresponding lung recovery rates, factors contributing to score improvement using multivariable regression models, and 1-year post-transplant recipient survival.
resultsOverall lung recovery was 32.4% (1410 of 4351). Validation of the LUNDON score in our cohort revealed a C statistic of 0.904 and required intercept calibration. Low initial LUNDON donors that improved to a high final score had an increase in lung recovery rate from 29.3% (1100 of 3765) to 86.8% (441 of 508), associated with lower body mass index, management in a specialized donor care facility (SDCF), and more bronchoscopies. Donors with high initial and final LUNDON scores had a lung recovery rate of 85.2% (98 of 115), associated with shorter length of hospital stay. One-year survival was similar in recipients of low-to-high versus high-to-high LUNDON score donors (0.89 vs 0.84; P = .2).
conclusionsThe LUNDON score performs well as a predictor of lung recovery in a contemporary cohort but may require organ procurement organization-specific calibration. SDCF care, increasing use of bronchoscopy, and decreasing the time from brain death to organ procurement may improve lung utilization. The LUNDON score can be used to guide donor management to expand the donor pool.
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.