Comparing outcomes in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Single versus bilateral lung transplants

8Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Debate continues on whether a bilateral (BLT) or a single lung transplantation (SLT) is preferred for patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to examine the interplay between patient age and transplant type on survival outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of lung transplants for COPD at our centre from February 2012 to March 2020 (n = 186). Demographics and clinical parameters were compared between patients based on their age (≤65 vs >65 years old) and type of transplant (single vs bilateral). Cox proportional hazards regression was also performed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 186 patients with COPD who received lung transplants, 71 (38.2%) received BLTs and 115 (61.8%) received SLTs. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes when looking at patients with single versus BLTs (P = 0.870). There was also no difference in survival between the 2 age groups ≤65 versus > 65 years (P = 0.723). The Cox model itself also did not show a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes (P = 0.126). CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplant outcomes in patients with end-stage COPD demonstrated non-inferior results in patients with an SLT compared to patients with a BLT. When we compared the age groups, neither transplant type showed superior survival benefits, suggesting there may be some utility in an SLT in younger recipients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mutyala, S., Kashem, M. A., Kanaparthi, J., Sunagawa, G., Suryapalam, M., Leotta, E., … Toyoda, Y. (2021). Comparing outcomes in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Single versus bilateral lung transplants. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, 33(5), 807–813. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivab169

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free