ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
An interpretative review of North American expert consensus on the clinical role of ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) with acellular perfusate.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research advances in consistency and variability inJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Lung transplantation in 2025: a narrative review of progress, challenges, and the road ahead.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides a systematic analysis and commentary on the North American Expert Consensus regarding the clinical role of ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) using acellular perfusate. The consensus outlines key recommendations, including general statements on EVLP, criteria for donor lung selection, critical assessment parameters during perfusion, and a decision-making framework for transplantation. It emphasizes that current clinical practice relies heavily on small-scale, non-randomized, single-center studies, which often require substantial reliance on clinical judgment and institutional experience. As a result, the consensus calls for further, more rigorous research to establish evidence-based guidelines for EVLP-related decisions. By integrating the consensus recommendations with recent advancements in both basic and clinical EVLP research, this article examines the clinical relevance of various decision-making criteria and evaluation frameworks. It also explores EVLP management strategies within specific clinical contexts identified in the consensus. Additionally, the article discusses the inherent logistical and economic challenges associated with implementing EVLP in clinical settings. By clarifying both established principles and ongoing controversies, this review aims to bridge the gap between theoretical consensus and clinical practice, and to provide a useful reference for standardizing EVLP protocols, improving donor lung quality, expanding the donor pool, and enhancing transplant outcomes.
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.