ArticleJHLT open2026
Size-matching in lung transplantation using the adjusted total lung capacity ratio.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence guiding optimal size-matching in lung transplantation is limited, and no consensus exists. Most current approaches fail to account for the recipient's underlying pathology. A recently proposed "adjusted" total lung capacity (TLC) ratio, incorporating actual (aTLC) and predicted TLC (pTLC), may offer a physiologically relevant size-matching strategy. However, its clinical performance has not been reported. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 376 double lung transplants at our center between January 2017 and March 2023, excluding lobar transplants. We calculated the adjusted TLC ratio as the donor pTLC divided by the mean of the recipient pTLC and aTLC. Patients were categorized into 3 groups as follows: all recipients (Cohort A, n = 376), restrictive lung disease (Cohort B, n = 204), and restrictive disease without volume-reduction procedures (Cohort C, n = 150). The primary outcome was peak posttransplant forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Secondary outcomes included baseline lung allograft dysfunction (BLAD), chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), survival, and time to normalization of lung function. Results: Based on posttransplant peak FEV1, we identified an adjusted TLC ratio of 0.9 to 1.0 as the optimal range for lung-size matching. Optimally sized (0.9-1.0) and undersized (0.79-0.89) grafts showed the highest FEV1 posttransplant. Oversized grafts (>1.0) were associated with lower FEV1 across all cohorts and higher BLAD incidence in Cohort A. The adjusted TLC ratio did not influence survival. Conclusion: Size-matching using an adjusted TLC ratio of 0.79 to 1.0 correlates with improved long-term outcomes in lung transplantation, whereas oversizing may impair lung function. The effect on survival remains inconclusive due to study limitations.
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.