HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): David P. Mason Jeffrey Wu Edward R. Nowicki Sudish C. Murthy Gösta B. Pettersson Eugene H. Blackstone Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mason, D. P. Articles by Blackstone, E. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mason, D. P. Articles by Blackstone, E. H. Related Collections Lung - transplantation

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137:1234-1240
© 2009 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Cardiothoracic Transplantation

Matching donor to recipient in lung transplantation: How much does size matter?

^a Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
^b Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
^c Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Received for publication May 9, 2008; revisions received August 11, 2008; accepted for publication October 26, 2008.

^_* Address for reprints: David P. Mason, MD, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue/Desk J4-1, Cleveland, OH 44195. (Email: masond2{at}ccf.org).

Objective: The impact of size matching between donor and recipient is unclear in lung transplantation. Therefore, we determined the relation of donor lung size to 1) posttransplant survival and 2) pulmonary function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

Methods: From 1990 to 2006, 469 adults underwent lung transplantation with lungs from donors aged 7 to 70 years. Donor and recipient total lung capacities were calculated using established formulae (predicted total lung capacity), and actual recipient lung size was measured in the pulmonary function laboratory. Disparity between donor and recipient lung size was expressed as a ratio of donor predicted total lung capacity to recipient predicted total lung capacity—the predicted total lung capacity ratio—and predicted donor total lung capacity to actual recipient total lung capacity—the actual total lung capacity ratio. Survival was measured by multiphase hazard methodology and repeated measures of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey–normalized forced expiratory volume in 1 second analyzed by temporal decomposition.

Results: Predicted total lung capacity ratio and actual total lung capacity ratio ranged widely, from 0.55 to 1.59 and 0.52 to 4.20, respectively. Overall survival was unaffected by predicted total lung capacity ratio (P = .3) or actual total lung capacity ratio (P = .5). Patients with emphysema and an actual total lung capacity ratio of 0.67 or less or 1.03 or greater had higher predicted mortality (P = .01). During the first posttransplant year, forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased and then gradually declined. Predicted total lung capacity ratio and actual total lung capacity ratio had a small impact on forced expiratory volume in 1 second, primarily in the late phase after transplant in a disease-specific manner.

Conclusion: Size matching between donor and recipient using predicted total lung capacity ratio and actual total lung capacity ratio is an effective technique. Wide discrepancies in lung sizing do not affect overall posttransplant survival or pulmonary function. Therefore, a greater degree of lung size mismatch can likely be accepted, thereby improving patients' odds of undergoing transplantation.