Search

PURPOSE: Following introduction of the lung allocation score (LAS) in 2011, Eurotransplant member centers can apply for an exceptional LAS (eLAS) if the calculated LAS insufficiently reflects the perceived transplant benefit for a patient, specifically in case of primary pulmonary hypertension group 1 and 4; combined lung+non-renal transplantation; rare diseases; or extracorporeal support. Each eLAS proposal is evaluated by a LAS Review Board, consisting of ≥3 lung transplant experts, which subsequently declines or approves the eLAS request in consensus of ≥3 votes. In case of a lower than accepted score, predefined business rules to assign LAS percentiles are used. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all eLAS requests in Eurotransplant from December 2011 until September 2019. RESULTS: Overall, 5183 lung transplants (deceased donors) were performed and 420 eLAS requests were made (Germany 52%, Netherlands 18%, Austria 18%, Belgium 13%), of which 116 (28%) were approved. Most eLAS requests concerned group B/Pulmonary vascular disease (44%), followed by group C/Cystic fibrosis or immunodeficiency disorder (28%), then group D/Restrictive lung disease (15%) and finally group A/Obstructive lung disease (11%); whereas 10 patients (2%) were not classified. The proportion of accepted eLAS requests significantly differed between countries (Germany 25%, Netherlands 37%, Austria 20%, Belgium 36%) (p=0.042). eLAS requests decreased in the Netherlands following its LAS introduction in 2014 (2011-2014 mean 13/yr vs. 2015-2019 mean 4.6/yr; p=0.060). However, since 2015 an overall annual increasing number of eLAS requests is seen, with doubling of the eLAS requests in 2018 vs. 2015, but no difference in acceptance rate (2015-2018: 22.4%) (Figure). Acceptance rates were 38% for Group B, 21% for Group C, 20% for Group D and 11% for Group A. CONCLUSION: The observed variations require further investigation to optimize lung allocation for specific patient populations in Eurotransplant, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an impact of donation rates on the quality of lungs used for transplantation and whether donor lung quality affects post-transplant outcome in the current Lung Allocation Score era. All consecutive adult LTx performed in Eurotransplant (ET) between January 2012 and December 2016 were included (N = 3053). Donors used for LTx in countries with high donation rate were younger (42% vs. 33% ≤45 years, P < 0.0001), were less often smokers (35% vs. 46%, P < 0.0001), had more often clear chest X-rays (82% vs. 72%, P < 0.0001), had better donor oxygenation ratios (20% vs. 26% with PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg, P < 0.0001), and had better lung donor score values (LDS; 28% vs. 17% with LDS = 6, P < 0.0001) compared with donors used for LTx in countries with low donation rate. Survival rates for the groups LDS = 6 and ≥7 at 5 years were 69.7% and 60.9% (P = 0.007). Lung donor quality significantly impacts on long-term patient survival. Countries with a low donation rate are more oriented to using donor lungs with a lesser quality compared to countries with a high donation rate. Instead of further stretching donor eligibility criteria, the full potential of the donor pool should be realized., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Both Eurotransplant (ET) and the US use the lung allocation score (LAS) to allocate donor lungs. In 2015, the US implemented a new algorithm for calculating the score while ET has fine-tuned the original model using business rules. A comparison of both models in a contemporary patient cohort was performed. The rank positions and the correlation between both scores were calculated for all patients on the active waiting list in ET. On February 6th 2017, 581 patients were actively listed on the lung transplant waiting list. The median LAS values were 32.56 and 32.70 in ET and the US, respectively. The overall correlation coefficient between both scores was 0.71. Forty-three per cent of the patients had a < 2 point change in their LAS. US LAS was more than two points lower for 41% and more than two points higher for 16% of the patients. Median ranks and the 90th percentiles for all diagnosis groups did not differ between both scores. Implementing the 2015 US LAS model would not significantly alter the current waiting list in ET.

Both Eurotransplant (ET) and the US use the lung allocation score (LAS) to allocate donor lungs. In 2015, the US implemented a new algorithm for calculating the score while ET has fine-tuned the original model using business rules. A comparison of both models in a contemporary patient cohort was performed. The rank positions and the correlation between both scores were calculated for all patients on the active waiting list in ET. On February 6th 2017, 581 patients were actively listed on the lung transplant waiting list. The median LAS values were 32.56 and 32.70 in ET and the US, respectively. The overall correlation coefficient between both scores was 0.71. Forty-three per cent of the patients had a < 2 point change in their LAS. US LAS was more than two points lower for 41% and more than two points higher for 16% of the patients. Median ranks and the 90th percentiles for all diagnosis groups did not differ between both scores. Implementing the 2015 US LAS model would not significantly alter the current waiting list in ET., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

[Abstract] Aims. A non-invasive gene-expression profiling (GEP) test for rejection surveillance of heart transplant recipients originated in the USA. A European-based study, Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational II Study (CARGO II), was conducted to further clinically validate the GEP test performance. Methods and results. Blood samples for GEP testing (AlloMap®, CareDx, Brisbane, CA, USA) were collected during post-transplant surveillance. The reference standard for rejection status was based on histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), negative (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for the GEP scores (range 0–39) were computed. Considering the GEP score of 34 as a cut-off (>6 months post-transplantation), 95.5% (381/399) of GEP tests were true negatives, 4.5% (18/399) were false negatives, 10.2% (6/59) were true positives, and 89.8% (53/59) were false positives. Based on 938 paired biopsies, the GEP test score AUC-ROC for distinguishing ≥3A rejection was 0.70 and 0.69 for ≥2–6 and >6 months post-transplantation, respectively. Depending on the chosen threshold score, the NPV and PPV range from 98.1 to 100% and 2.0 to 4.7%, respectively. Conclusion. For ≥2–6 and >6 months post-transplantation, CARGO II GEP score performance (AUC-ROC = 0.70 and 0.69) is similar to the CARGO study results (AUC-ROC = 0.71 and 0.67). The low prevalence of ACR contributes to the high NPV and limited PPV of GEP testing. The choice of threshold score for practical use of GEP testing should consider overall clinical assessment of the patient's baseline risk for rejection.

[Abstract] Background. A single non-invasive gene expression profiling (GEP) test (AlloMap®) is often used to discriminate if a heart transplant recipient is at a low risk of acute cellular rejection at time of testing. In a randomized trial, use of the test (a GEP score from 0–40) has been shown to be non-inferior to a routine endomyocardial biopsy for surveillance after heart transplantation in selected low-risk patients with respect to clinical outcomes. Recently, it was suggested that the within-patient variability of consecutive GEP scores may be used to independently predict future clinical events; however, future studies were recommended. Here we performed an analysis of an independent patient population to determine the prognostic utility of within-patient variability of GEP scores in predicting future clinical events. Methods. We defined the GEP score variability as the standard deviation of four GEP scores collected ≥315 days post-transplantation. Of the 737 patients from the Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational (CARGO) II trial, 36 were assigned to the composite event group (death, re-transplantation or graft failure ≥315 days post-transplantation and within 3 years of the final GEP test) and 55 were assigned to the control group (non-event patients). In this case-controlled study, the performance of GEP score variability to predict future events was evaluated by the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC ROC). The negative predictive values (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) including 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of GEP score variability were calculated. Results. The estimated prevalence of events was 17 %. Events occurred at a median of 391 (inter-quartile range 376) days after the final GEP test. The GEP variability AUC ROC for the prediction of a composite event was 0.72 (95 % CI 0.6-0.8). The NPV for GEP score variability of 0.6 was 97 % (95 % CI 91.4-100.0); the PPV for GEP score variability of 1.5