Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Restoring dual blood supply to transplanted lungs by bronchial artery revascularization (BAR) remains controversial. We compared outcomes after lung transplantation performed with and without BAR.
METHODS: From December 2007 to July 2010, 283 patients underwent transplantation; 187 were 18 years or older, without previous or concomitant cardiac surgery. Of these patients, 27 underwent BAR in a pilot study to test success, safety, effectiveness, and teachability. A propensity score was generated to match BAR patients and 54 routine non-BAR patients. Follow-up was 1.3 ± 0.68 years.
RESULTS: BAR was angiographically successful in 26 (96%) of 27 patients. BAR and non-BAR patients had similar skin-to-skin time (P = .07) and postoperative hospital stays (P = .2), but more reoperations for bleeding (P = .002). Tracheostomy was performed in 9 (33%) of 27 BAR and 10 (19%) of 54 non-BAR patients (P = .2, log-rank). One BAR (3.7%) and 4 non-BAR (7.4%) patients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P = .7). Airway ischemia was observed in 1 BAR (3.7%) versus 12 non-BAR (22%) patients (P = .03); anastomotic intervention was required in no BAR versus 8 non-BAR (15%) patients (P = .04). Hospital mortality was 1 of 27 versus 2 of 54 (P = .9). BAR patients had lower early biopsy tissue rejection grades (P = .008) and fewer pulmonary (P < .04) and bloodstream (P < .02) infections. Forced 1-second expiratory volume was similar (P > .2); 3 BAR versus 9 non-BAR patients developed bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) (P = .14, log-rank). During follow-up, 4 BAR and 8 non-BAR patients died (P = .6, log-rank).
CONCLUSIONS: BAR is safe, with comparable early outcomes. Benefits of BAR include reduced airway ischemia and complications, lower biopsy tissue grades, fewer infections, and delay of BOS. A multicenter study is needed to establish these benefits.
METHODS: From December 2007 to July 2010, 283 patients underwent transplantation; 187 were 18 years or older, without previous or concomitant cardiac surgery. Of these patients, 27 underwent BAR in a pilot study to test success, safety, effectiveness, and teachability. A propensity score was generated to match BAR patients and 54 routine non-BAR patients. Follow-up was 1.3 ± 0.68 years.
RESULTS: BAR was angiographically successful in 26 (96%) of 27 patients. BAR and non-BAR patients had similar skin-to-skin time (P = .07) and postoperative hospital stays (P = .2), but more reoperations for bleeding (P = .002). Tracheostomy was performed in 9 (33%) of 27 BAR and 10 (19%) of 54 non-BAR patients (P = .2, log-rank). One BAR (3.7%) and 4 non-BAR (7.4%) patients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P = .7). Airway ischemia was observed in 1 BAR (3.7%) versus 12 non-BAR (22%) patients (P = .03); anastomotic intervention was required in no BAR versus 8 non-BAR (15%) patients (P = .04). Hospital mortality was 1 of 27 versus 2 of 54 (P = .9). BAR patients had lower early biopsy tissue rejection grades (P = .008) and fewer pulmonary (P < .04) and bloodstream (P < .02) infections. Forced 1-second expiratory volume was similar (P > .2); 3 BAR versus 9 non-BAR patients developed bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) (P = .14, log-rank). During follow-up, 4 BAR and 8 non-BAR patients died (P = .6, log-rank).
CONCLUSIONS: BAR is safe, with comparable early outcomes. Benefits of BAR include reduced airway ischemia and complications, lower biopsy tissue grades, fewer infections, and delay of BOS. A multicenter study is needed to establish these benefits.
摘要：
暂无翻译
