
==== Front
J Thorac Dis
J Thorac Dis
JTD
Journal of Thoracic Disease
2072-1439
2077-6624
AME Publishing Company

jtd-16-08-5050
10.21037/jtd-24-100
Original Article
Contrasting predictors of severe primary graft dysfunction following transplant for chronic and acute respiratory failure
Kurihara Chitaru https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3536-4675
1
Kaiho Taisuke https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1056-5929
1
Thomae Benjamin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-9696
1
Cerier Emily https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0095-2592
1
Lung Kalvin 1
Avella Patino Diego 1
Toyoda Takahide https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4766-5221
1
Yan Yuanqing 1
Budinger G. R. Scott https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3114-5208
2
Bharat Ankit https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1248-0457
1 2
1 Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA;
2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
Contributions: (I) Conception and design: C Kurihara, A Bharat; (II) Administrative support: C Kurihara; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: C Kurihara; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: T Kaiho, B Thomae, E Cerier, T Toyoda; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: T Kaiho, B Thomae, E Cerier, T Toyoda, Y Yan; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Ankit Bharat, MD, FACS. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. Saint Clair St., Suite 650, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. Email: ankit.bharat@nm.org.
28 8 2024
31 8 2024
16 8 50505062
18 1 2024
19 6 2024
2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
2024
Journal of Thoracic Disease.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.
Background

Lung transplantation represents a pivotal intervention for individuals grappling with end-stage lung diseases, and the role of lung transplantation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients has garnered increased attention especially after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies have demonstrated a high incidence of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in patients with ARDS compared to contemporaneous controls undergoing transplantation for chronic end-stage lung diseases although underlying mechanisms or risk factors remain unknown. This retrospective study investigates the contrasting risk factors for PGD grade 3 in patients with ARDS and chronic respiratory failure undergoing lung transplantation.

Methods

The study included 293 patients who underwent lung transplantation from January 2018 through June 2023. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis using variables from the univariate logistic regression analyses to predict PGD grade 3.

Results

Our findings reveal distinct predictors for PGD grade 3 in the two cohorts. ARDS patients had higher incidence of PGD grade 3 than non-ARDS patients (30.2% vs. 9.6%, P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed ischemic time [odds ratio (OR) =0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40–0.90; P=0.01] as predictor of PGD grade 3 for non-ARDS patients, and age (OR =0.72; 95% CI: 0.52–0.99; P=0.048), pre-operative albumin (OR <0.01; 95% CI: <0.01–0.74; P=0.042) for ARDS patients. Interestingly, there was no notable difference in post-transplant survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study highlights differing risk profiles for severe PGD in ARDS and non-ARDS lung transplant recipients, underscoring the need for tailored approaches in managing these patients. It paves the way for further research to refine strategies aimed at reducing PGD incidence and enhancing transplant outcomes in these distinct populations.

Keywords:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
lung transplant
primary graft dysfunction (PGD)
the National Institutes of HealthNos. HL145478, HL147290, and HL147575
==== Body
pmcHighlight box

Key findings

• Lung transplantation represents a pivotal intervention for individuals grappling with end-stage lung diseases, but primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains an early morbidity and mortality.

What is known and what is new?

• Known risk factors of PGD are prolonged ischemic time and the use of intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass. The role of lung transplantation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management, especially in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, has garnered increased attention.

• Multiple studies have demonstrated a high incidence of PGD in patients with ARDS compared to traditional lung transplant patients. However, the risk of PGD in patients with ARDS has not been investigated.

What is the implication, and what should change now?

• This study highlights differing risk profiles for severe PGD in ARDS and non-ARDS lung transplant recipients, underscoring the need for tailored approaches in managing these patients. It paves the way for further research to refine strategies aimed at reducing PGD incidence and enhancing transplant outcomes in these distinct populations.

Introduction

Background

Lung transplantation represents a pivotal intervention for individuals grappling with end-stage lung diseases, offering a renewed chance at life. In the U.S., the field has progressed to performing around 2,500 transplants annually with a steady increase (1). However, primary graft dysfunction (PGD), a form of severe acute lung injury occurring within 72 hours post-transplantation, remains a formidable challenge, often resulting in early morbidity and mortality (2,3). The existing body of research on lung transplantation and PGD has identified several risk factors, such as prolonged ischemic time and the use of intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass (4-11).

Knowledge gap

However, a significant knowledge gap exists, particularly in the context of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a condition with notably high mortality (12). The role of lung transplantation in ARDS management, especially in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has garnered increased attention (13,14), and it is an accepted indication by both the U.S. (Organ Procurement and Transplant Network) and Europe (Eurotransplant) regulatory bodies. However, multiple studies have demonstrated a high incidence of PGD in patients with ARDS compared to contemporaneous controls undergoing transplantation for chronic end-stage lung diseases although underlying mechanisms or risk factors remain unknown (11,15,16). Nevertheless, this disproportionately high incidence of PGD in patients with acute respiratory failure provides a unique opportunity to identify the contrasting clinical risk factors predisposing the two groups of patients which would not only improve our insights into the pathogenesis of PGD but enable better patient selection for transplant.

Objective

Accordingly, this study seeks to bridge this gap by comparing the risk factors for PGD in two distinct patient cohorts: those with ARDS and those with chronic respiratory failures, such as interstitial lung disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Through a retrospective analysis of lung transplant recipients in these categories, our research aims to illuminate specific risk factors contributing to PGD, thereby enhancing our understanding and management of this critical post-transplant complication.

Methods

Study design

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northwestern University (Nos. STU00207250 and STU00213616). The need for patient consent for data collection was waived by the institutional review board because this was a retrospective study. Patient data were collected retrospectively using electronic medical records that were stored in a lung transplant database at the Northwestern University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Consecutive adult patients who underwent lung transplantation at our institution from January 2018 to June 2023 were included. From the study, patients with multiorgan transplants and re-lung transplant were excluded. Data on patient demographics, comorbidities, donor characteristics, preoperative laboratory values, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were collected. ARDS patients were defined as listed diagnosis for lung transplant.

Definition of ARDS and indication and management of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

ARDS was defined by accordance with the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) (12,17). Intubated patients were managed by our multidisciplinary team led by critical care pulmonologists in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) in accordance with ARDSnet guidelines. Patients who developed respiratory failure were considered for ECMO if they fail to achieve satisfactory gas exchange (PaO2 >55 mmHg, oxygen saturations >88%, pH >7.2, with plateau pressures less than 35) despite lung protective mechanical ventilation and recruitment maneuvers with neuromuscular blockade as well as prone ventilation, based on the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO; www.elso.org). The decision to cannulate was made by a multidisciplinary ECMO team including pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, ECMO specialists, and intensivists, using a multidisciplinary teleconference line. Different cannulation strategies [internal jugular vein-femoral vein cannulation or ProtekDuo® cannulation (CardiacAssist Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA)] were used. The venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) circuit included Quadrox iD adult (7.0) oxygenator (MAQUET Holding B.V. & Co. KG, Germany) and Rotaflow pump (MAQUET Holding B.V. & Co. KG). Patients did not receive continuous anticoagulation unless there was clinical and/or radiological evidence of a thrombotic complication including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), arterial thrombosis, etc. that warranted its use consistent with our prior reports (18-20). Patient received unfractionated heparin (5,000 U given subcutaneously every 8 hours) for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. To avoid thrombotic complications in ECMO circuit, flow was maintained at least 3.0–3.5 L/min consistent with our recent reports demonstrating the feasibility of using VV-ECMO without anticoagulation (18-20). Transfusion thresholds included: platelets <50,000/mL, hemoglobin <7 g/dL, or hemodynamic instability in the setting of active blood loss.

Immunosuppression management

Induction

❖ Methylprednisolone 1,000 mg via intravenous at intraoperatively;

❖ Basiliximab 20 mg at intraoperatively and postoperative day (POD) 4.

Maintenance immunosuppression

❖ Prednisone 0.5 mg/kg p.o. daily from POD 1. Maximum dose = prednisone 40 mg daily. 0.5 mg/kg daily for 1 month, then taper by 5 mg every 2 weeks down to 5 mg/day as a maintenance dose.

❖ Mycophenolate mofetil 1,000 mg b.i.d. from POD 1.

❖ Tacrolimus start POD 1. Goal target levels 8–12 within first year post-transplant; then target 8–10 thereafter.

Definition of complications

PGD

Patients with no evidence of pulmonary edema on chest X-ray (CXR) were considered grade 0. The absence of invasive mechanical ventilation was graded according to the PaO2/FiO2 ratio using methods similar to those used for mechanical ventilation. If PaO2 was not available for calculation of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, then an oxygen saturation/FiO2 ratio was used. Grade 1: PaO2/FiO2 ratio >300; grade 2: PaO2/FiO2 ratio is 200–300; grade 3: PaO2/FiO2 ratio <200. The lowest PaO2/FiO2 ratio, within 72 hours of lung transplantation, was used. The use of ECMO for bilateral pulmonary edema on CXR images was classified as grade 3. Continuous use of ECMO without pulmonary edema on CXR imaging was excluded (21).

Acute kidney injury (AKI)

AKI was defined using the risk, failure, loss of kidney function, and the end-stage kidney disease classification (22).

Statistical analysis

Recipient and donor characteristics, preoperative laboratory values, and intra- and post-operative outcomes were compared between ARDS patients and non-ARDS patients. The Mann-Whitney U test or Student t-test was used to compare independent, continuous variables between the groups. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables, which were reported as numbers and percentages. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to estimate survival, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare survival between the groups. Univariate logistic regression analyses were utilized to assess the ability of recipient and donor characteristics, and other intra-operative outcomes to predict PGD grade 3. We then performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis using variables from the univariate logistic regression analyses with a P value <0.5 (6,10,20,23-26). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. EZR software (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), and a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), were used to perform all of the analyses (27).

Results

Study cohort and transplant outcomes of ARDS and non-ARDS patients

This study included 301 patients who underwent lung transplantations during the study period. Of these, 5 patients underwent multi-organ transplantations and 3 patients underwent re-transplant were excluded. Consequently, a total of 293 patients were included in this study. We first compared the recipient’s characteristics between ARDS and non-ARDS patients. Age was found to be higher in the recipients in the non-ARDS patients compared to the ARDS patients (59.8±11.9 vs. 50.3±11.2 years, P<0.001). The ARDS patients had lower prevalence of smoking history (20.9% vs. 52.4%, P<0.001), pre-transplant ECMO use (65.1% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001), pre-transplant blood transfusion within 4 weeks (58.1% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001), shorter wait list days {17 [7–43] vs. 9 [5–20] days, P<0.001}, lower hemoglobin (g/dL), platelet (×103/mm3), creatinine (mg/dL), and albumin (g/dL) levels (8.7±1.8 vs. 12.0±2.4 g/dL, P<0.001; 217.8±115.8 vs. 250.3±90.9 ×103/mm3, P=0.04; 0.60±0.23 vs. 0.81±0.23 mg/dL, P<0.001; 3.6±0.6 vs. 3.9±0.5 g/dL, P<0.001; respectively) and higher sodium (mEg/L) and BUN (mg/dL) (141.0±4.1 vs. 139.5±3.3 mEq/L, P<0.01; 20.2±12.5 vs. 16.0±6.4 mg/dL, P<0.001; respectively). Additionally, there were no significant differences in donor characteristics between the two groups (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient characteristics by ARDS

Variables	ARDS group (n=43)	Non-ARDS group (n=250)	P value	
Recipient factors				
   Age (years)	50.3±11.2	59.8±11.9	<0.001	
   Female, n (%)	19 (44.2)	104 (41.6)	0.74	
   Body mass index (kg/m2)	26.1±4.2	25.8±4.6	0.70	
   Body surface area (m2)	1.9±0.2	1.9±0.2	0.71	
   Smoking history, n (%)	9 (20.9)	131 (52.4)	<0.001	
   Hypertension, n (%)	19 (44.2)	130 (52.0)	0.41	
   Diabetes, n (%)	15 (34.9)	75 (30.0)	0.59	
   Pre-transplant ECMO use, n (%)	28 (65.1)	9 (3.6)	<0.001	
   Bilateral lung transplant, n (%)	43 (100.0)	141 (56.4)	<0.001	
   Lung allocation score	82.0±14.6	50.6±15.7	<0.001	
   On the waiting list (days)	9 [5–20]	17 [7–43]	0.01	
   Pre-transplant blood transfusion
within 4 weeks, n (%)	25 (58.1)	8 (3.2)	<0.001	
Etiology of lung failure, n (%)				
   Interstitial lung disease	0 (0.0)	109 (43.6)	–	
   ARDS	43 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	–	
   COPD	0 (0.0)	55 (22.0)	–	
   Pulmonary artery hypertension	0 (0.0)	27 (10.8)	–	
   Other	0 (0.0)	59 (23.6)	–	
Laboratory values				
   Hemoglobin (g/dL)	8.7±1.8	12.0±2.4	<0.001	
   WBC (×103/mm3)	9.8±4.1	9.9±3.9	0.87	
   Platelets (×103/mm3)	217.8±115.8	250.3±90.9	0.04	
   Sodium (mEq/L)	141.0±4.1	139.5±3.3	<0.01	
   BUN (mg/dL)	20.2±12.5	16.0±6.4	<0.001	
   Creatinine (mg/dL)	0.60±0.23	0.81±0.23	<0.001	
   AST (U/L)	25.7±16.2	27.3±20.4	0.63	
   ALT (U/L)	20.5±13.3	20.5±17.4	0.98	
   Albumin (g/dL)	3.6±0.6	3.9±0.5	<0.001	
   Total bilirubin (mg/dL)	0.7±1.0	0.7±0.5	0.33	
   INR	1.2±0.2	1.1±0.2	0.07	
   PRA, n (%)	22 (51.2)	98 (39.2)	0.18	
Arterial blood gas				
   pH	7.40±0.07	7.37±0.07	0.05	
   PaCO2 (mmHg)	50.0±12.7	49.1±11.0	0.62	
   PaO2 (mmHg)	207.8±105.2	278.3±108.9	<0.001	
Donor				
   Age (years)	30.9±11.8	33.4±11.9	0.20	
   Female, n (%)	16 (37.2)	76 (30.4)	0.38	
Cause of death, n (%)				
   Head trauma	20 (46.5)	94 (37.6)	0.31	
   Anoxia	17 (39.5)	94 (37.6)	0.87	
   Other	6 (14.0)	62 (24.8)	0.17	
Continuous data are shown as means ± standard deviation for age and laboratory data, and as medians and interquartile ranges [Q1–Q3]. Etiology of lung failure other: sarcoidosis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, obliterative bronchiolitis, bronchoalveolar carcinoma, primary ciliary dyskinesia. ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; WBC, white blood cell; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; INR, international normalized ratio; PRA, panel reactive antibodies.

We then determined whether there were differences in transplant outcomes between the two groups. The operative time and ischemic time were longer in the ARDS group [8.7 (7.7–9.7) vs. 5.8 (5.0–7.5) hours, P<0.001; 5.8 (5.2–6.1) vs. 4.9 (4.0–5.8) hours, P<0.001]. The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during lung transplantation were also higher in the ARDS group (97.7% vs. 57.2%, P<0.001). Intra-operatively, ARDS patients had significantly more blood product transfusions, including packed red blood cells (pRBC) {7 [3–14] vs. 0 [0–2] units, P<0.001}, fresh frozen plasma (FFP) {2 [0–6] vs. 0 [0–0] units, P<0.001}, and platelets {1 [0–3] vs. 0 [0–0] units, P<0.001}. Post-operatively, ARDS patients were more likely to require VV-ECMO (46.5% vs. 8.0%, P<0.001), and had longer ICU admissions {20 [12–30] vs. 7 [5–13] days, P<0.001}, post-transplant ventilator requirements {7 [2–18] vs. 2 [1–3] days, P<0.001}, and overall hospital stays {29 [18–39] vs. 16 [11–28] days, P<0.001}. ARDS patients also had significantly higher incidences of post-operative PGD grade 3 (30.2% vs. 9.6%, P<0.001) and AKI (60.5% vs. 39.6%, P=0.01) (Table 2). Moreover, there was no difference in the post-transplant survival rate during the two periods (P=0.11, Figure 1).

Table 2 Intra- and post-operative outcomes of lung transplant recipients by ARDS

Variables	ARDS group (n=43)	Non-ARDS group (n=250)	P value	
Intra-operative outcomes				
   Operative time (hours)	8.7 [7.7–9.7]	5.8 [5.0–7.5]	<0.001	
   Intra-op blood transfusion				
    pRBC (units)	7 [3–14]	0 [0–2]	<0.001	
    FFP (units)	2 [0–6]	0 [0–0]	<0.001	
    Plt (units)	1 [0–3]	0 [0–0]	<0.001	
   Ischemic time (hours)	5.8 [5.2–6.1]	4.9 [4.0–5.8]	<0.001	
   Veno-arterial ECMO use, n (%)	42 (97.7)	143 (57.2)	<0.001	
Post-operative outcomes				
   Acute kidney injury, n (%)	26 (60.5)	99 (39.6)	0.01	
   Dialysis, n (%)	4 (9.3)	13 (5.2)	0.29	
   Stroke, n (%)	0 (0.0)	6 (2.4)	0.60	
   Bowel ischemia, n (%)	0 (0.0)	4 (1.6)	>0.99	
   Digital ischemia, n (%)	1 (2.3)	5 (2.0)	>0.99	
   PGD (any grade), n (%)	28 (65.1)	100 (40.0)	<0.01	
   PGD (grade 3), n (%)	13 (30.2)	24 (9.6)	<0.001	
   Post-transplant ECMO support, n (%)	20 (46.5)	20 (8.0)	<0.001	
   Intensive care unit stay (days)	20 [12–30]	7 [5–13]	<0.001	
   Post-transplant ventilator (days)	7 [2–18]	2 [1–3]	<0.001	
   Hospital stay (days)	29 [18–39]	16 [11–28]	<0.001	
Continuous data are shown as medians and interquartile ranges [Q1–Q3]. ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; pRBC, packed red blood cells; FFP, fresh frozen plasma; Plt, platelets; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; PGD, primary graft dysfunction.

Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival after lung transplantation. Comparison of survival rates ARDS and non-ARDS patients. ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Predictors of PGD grade 3: ARDS and non-ARDS patients

Predictors of PGD grade 3: non-ARDS patients

Univariate logistic regression analysis of donor and recipient characteristics, and intra-operative outcomes, revealed chronic kidney disease (CKD) history [odds ratio (OR) =4.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62–13.6; P=0.004], pre-transplant ECMO support (OR =8.84; 95% CI: 2.20–35.6; P=0.002), lung allocation score (OR =1.03; 95% CI: 1.01–1.05; P=0.02), pre-transplant blood transfusion within 4 weeks (OR =19.6; 95% CI: 4.34–88.2; P<0.001), pre-operative albumin (OR =0.36; 95% CI: 0.16–0.79; P=0.01), pre-operative total bilirubin (OR =2.16; 95% CI: 1.19–3.94; P=0.01), intra-operative pRBC transfusion (OR =1.15; 95% CI: 1.03–1.29; P=0.01), intra-operative platelets transfusion (OR =1.51; 95% CI: 1.11–2.06; P=0.009), and ischemic time (OR =0.67; 95% CI: 0.49–0.93; P=0.02) as predictive of PGD grade 3 development (Table 3). On subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis, ischemic time (OR =0.60; 95% CI: 0.40–0.90; P=0.01) remained predictive (Table 4).

Table 3 Univariate logistic regression analysis to predict PGD grade 3 in non-ARDS group (n=250)

Variables	OR	95% CI	P value	
Recipient factors				
   Age	0.98	0.95–1.02	0.33	
   Female	1.46	0.63–3.38	0.38	
   Body mass index	0.99	0.90–1.08	0.77	
   Body surface area	0.77	0.14–4.22	0.76	
   Smoking history	0.90	0.39–2.09	0.81	
   Hypertension	0.76	0.33–1.77	0.53	
   Diabetes	0.96	0.38–2.41	0.93	
   CKD	4.69	1.62–13.6	0.004	
   Pre-transplant ECMO use	8.84	2.20–35.6	0.002	
   Bilateral lung transplant	1.09	0.47–2.56	0.84	
   Lung allocation score	1.03	1.01–1.05	0.02	
   Pre-transplant blood transfusion
within 4 weeks	19.6	4.34–88.2	<0.001	
Laboratory				
   Hemoglobin	0.91	0.76–1.09	0.33	
   WBC	0.97	0.86–1.09	0.60	
   Platelets	1.00	0.99–1.00	0.32	
   Sodium	1.07	0.95–1.21	0.24	
   BUN	1.04	0.99–1.10	0.16	
   Creatinine	0.98	0.83–1.15	0.81	
   AST	1.01	1.00–1.03	0.16	
   ALT	1.00	0.97–1.02	0.77	
   Albumin	0.36	0.16–0.79	0.01	
   Total bilirubin	2.16	1.19–3.94	0.01	
   INR	3.32	0.86–12.8	0.08	
   PRA	1.96	0.84–4.57	0.12	
Donor				
   Age	1.00	0.97–1.04	0.83	
   Female	2.10	0.89–4.92	0.09	
Intra-operative outcomes				
   Operative time	0.99	0.97–1.02	0.64	
   Intra-op blood transfusion				
    pRBC	1.15	1.03–1.29	0.01	
    FFP	1.22	1.00–1.49	0.05	
    Plt	1.51	1.11–2.06	0.009	
   Ischemic time	0.67	0.49–0.93	0.02	
   Veno-arterial ECMO use	1.93	0.77–4.83	0.16	
PGD, primary graft dysfunction; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; WBC, white blood cell; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; INR, international normalized ratio; PRA, panel reactive antibodies; pRBC, packed red blood cells; FFP, fresh frozen plasma; Plt, platelets.

Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict PGD grade 3 in non-ARDS group (n=250)

Variables	OR	95% CI	P value	
Recipient factors				
   CKD	3.13	0.88–11.1	0.08	
   Pre-transplant ECMO use	0.31	0.01–9.09	0.50	
   Lung allocation score	1.00	0.97–1.03	0.86	
   Pre-transplant blood transfusion
within 4 weeks	12.2	0.76–197	0.08	
Laboratory				
   Albumin	0.58	0.22–1.50	0.26	
   Total bilirubin	1.42	0.60–3.33	0.43	
Intra-operative outcomes				
   Intra-op blood transfusion				
    pRBC	1.16	0.97–1.37	0.10	
   Ischemic time	0.60	0.40–0.90	0.01	
PGD, primary graft dysfunction; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; pRBC, packed red blood cells.

Predictors of PGD grade 3: ARDS patients

Univariate logistic regression analysis of donor and recipient characteristics, and intra-operative outcomes, revealed age (OR =0.91; 95% CI: 0.85–0.98; P=0.008), bilateral lung transplant (OR =0.43; 95% CI: 0.23–0.83; P=0.01), pre-transplant blood transfusion within 4 weeks (OR =6.29; 95% CI: 1.18–33.3; P=0.03), pre-operative albumin (OR =0.26; 95% CI: 0.07–0.93; P=0.04), intra-operative pRBC transfusion (OR =1.17; 95% CI: 1.04–1.31; P=0.006), intra-operative FFP transfusion (OR =1.20; 95% CI: 1.04–1.38; P=0.01), and intra-operative platelets transfusion (OR =1.46; 95% CI: 1.06–2.01; P=0.02) as predictive of PGD grade 3 development (Table 5). On subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis, age (OR =0.72; 95% CI: 0.52–0.99; P=0.048), pre-operative albumin (OR <0.01; 95% CI: <0.01–0.74; P=0.042) remained predictive (Table 6). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that 46 was the cut-off value [area under the curve (AUC) =0.771] for the risk of PGD grade 3 in the ARDS patients (Figure 2).

Table 5 Univariate logistic regression analysis to predict PGD grade 3 in ARDS group (n=43)

Variables	OR	95% CI	P value	
Recipient factors				
   Age	0.91	0.85–0.98	0.008	
   Female	1.75	0.47–6.50	0.40	
   Body mass index	0.93	0.79–1.10	0.39	
   Body surface area	0.13	0.01–4.42	0.25	
   Smoking history	1.20	0.25–5.77	0.82	
   Hypertension	0.71	0.19–2.69	0.62	
   Diabetes	0.77	0.19–3.09	0.71	
   Pre-transplant ECMO use	<0.01	0–inf	0.99	
   Bilateral lung transplant	0.43	0.23–0.83	0.01	
   Lung allocation score	1.05	0.98–1.12	0.20	
   Pre-transplant blood transfusion
within 4 weeks	6.29	1.18–33.3	0.03	
Laboratory				
   Hemoglobin	0.74	0.48–1.14	0.17	
   WBC	1.09	0.93–1.28	0.28	
   Platelets	0.99	0.98–1.00	0.09	
   Sodium	0.99	0.84–1.17	0.93	
   BUN	1.01	0.96–1.06	0.76	
   Creatinine	14.5	0.70–302	0.08	
   AST	1.05	1.00–1.10	0.05	
   ALT	1.04	0.99–1.10	0.12	
   Albumin	0.26	0.07–0.93	0.04	
   Total bilirubin	1.88	0.65–5.42	0.25	
   INR	7.60	0.11–505	0.34	
   PRA	1.83	0.49–6.90	0.37	
Donor				
   Age	1.01	0.95–1.06	0.82	
   Female	0.67	0.17–2.67	0.57	
Intra-operative outcomes				
   Operative time	1.29	0.81–2.04	0.29	
   Intra-op blood transfusion				
    pRBC	1.17	1.04–1.31	0.006	
    FFP	1.20	1.04–1.38	0.01	
    Plt	1.46	1.06–2.01	0.02	
   Ischemic time	1.60	0.80–3.22	0.19	
   Veno-arterial ECMO use	<0.01	0–inf	0.99	
PGD, primary graft dysfunction; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; WBC, white blood cell; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; INR, international normalized ratio; PRA, panel reactive antibodies; pRBC, packed red blood cells; FFP, fresh frozen plasma; Plt, platelets; inf, infinity.

Table 6 Multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict PGD grade 3 in ARDS group (n=43)

Variables	OR	95% CI	P value	
Recipient factors				
   Age	0.72	0.52–0.99	0.048	
   Pre-transplant blood transfusion
within 4 weeks	201	0.0005–82400000	0.42	
Laboratory				
   AST	1.46	0.93–2.29	0.10	
   Albumin	0.00028	0.00000011–0.74	0.042	
Intra-operative outcomes				
   Intra-op blood transfusion				
    pRBC	2.71	0.82–9.02	0.10	
    FFP	0.91	0.40–2.07	0.82	
    Plt	0.22	0.023–2.06	0.18	
PGD, primary graft dysfunction; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; pRBC, packed red blood cells; FFP, fresh frozen plasma; Plt, platelets.

Figure 2 Receiver operating characteristic curve of age cut off for predictor of primary graft dysfunction. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval.

Discussion

PGD represents a significant challenge in lung transplantation, markedly impacting early morbidity and mortality (2,3). Our study sheds light on the contrasting risk factors for PGD in patients with ARDS and those with chronic respiratory failure. This distinction is critical, as PGD is an umbrella term encompassing complex pathophysiological mechanisms in lung grafts, influenced by both the recipient’s pre-existing condition and the transplantation process itself.

In patients with ARDS, we identified age and pre-operative albumin levels as significant predictors of PGD. ARDS, a rapidly progressive lung disease, often necessitates lung transplantation as a last resort due to its high mortality rate (12). The pre-transplant condition of these patients, characterized by heightened inflammation and compromised nutritional status reflected in albumin levels, plays a pivotal role in their susceptibility to PGD. In contrast, ischemic time stands out as a critical factor in patients with chronic respiratory failure. This aligns with the understanding that prolonged ischemic time exacerbates ischemia-reperfusion injury, a primary trigger for PGD.

Interestingly, studies have highlighted other risk factors, including donor smoking history, FiO2 during allograft reperfusion, and the recipient’s body mass index, as significant contributors to PGD development (4,28,29). Moreover, specific recipient-related factors, such as female gender, African American race, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and sarcoidosis, have been associated with increased PGD risk (30,31). These findings point towards a multifactorial nature of PGD, where both donor and recipient characteristics, along with procedural variables, interplay to influence the outcome.

Comparing the outcomes of lung transplantation in ARDS vs. chronic lung diseases, the literature suggests that while lung transplantation remains controversial for ARDS due to the acute nature of the disease, selected patients can achieve acceptable survival rates, comparable to those with chronic conditions (11,14). This is particularly noteworthy given the high survival rate in ARDS patients despite the severity of their pre-transplant condition and the complexities involved in their management, including prolonged ICU stays and the frequent need for ECMO support (11).

Our study comes with limitations. Firstly, we studied patients at a single center, at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, which may limit the generalizability of our conclusions. Also, the number of patients studied were small, which may reduce statistical power. Furthermore, since these results are based on the experiences of a small cohort in a single large institution, differences in patient referral patterns, ECMO management standards, and eligibility criteria cannot be generalized and must be considered. Second, ARDS patients included a very wide variety of diagnoses such as severe bacterial pneumonia, COVID-19 infection, and others which could impact the statistical analysis results.

Conclusions

Our study emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of PGD risk factors in different patient populations. It advocates for personalized approaches in preoperative assessment and perioperative care, considering the unique challenges posed by each patient’s underlying lung condition. The identification of specific risk profiles paves the way for tailored strategies aimed at minimizing PGD risk, ultimately improving lung transplant outcomes. Future research should delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms of these risk factors, exploring novel biomarkers and therapeutic interventions to further enhance patient care in lung transplantation.

Supplementary

The article’s supplementary files as

10.21037/jtd-24-100

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ms. Elena Susan for her administrative assistance in the submission of this manuscript.

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Nos. HL145478, HL147290, and HL147575 to A.B.).

Data Sharing Statement

Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-24-100/dss 10.21037/jtd-24-100

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northwestern University (Nos. STU00207250 and STU00213616). The need for patient consent for data collection was waived by the institutional review board because this was a retrospective study.

Peer Review File
Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-24-100/prf

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-24-100/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
==== Refs
References

1 Valapour M Lehr CJ Schladt DP OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Lung. Am J Transplant 2023;23 :S379-442. 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.02.009 37132345
2 Daud SA Yusen RD Meyers BF Impact of immediate primary lung allograft dysfunction on bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175 :507-13. 10.1164/rccm.200608-1079OC 17158279
3 Huang HJ Yusen RD Meyers BF Late primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Am J Transplant 2008;8 :2454-62. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02389.x 18785961
4 Diamond JM Lee JC Kawut SM Clinical risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;187 :527-34. 10.1164/rccm.201210-1865OC 23306540
5 Liu Y Liu Y Su L Recipient-related clinical risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9 :e92773. 10.1371/journal.pone.0092773 24658073
6 Toyoda T Thomae BL Kandula V Primary graft dysfunction grade correlates with acute kidney injury stage after lung transplantation. J Thorac Dis 2023;15 :3751-63. 10.21037/jtd-23-256 37559611
7 Christie JD Kotloff RM Pochettino A Clinical risk factors for primary graft failure following lung transplantation. Chest 2003;124 :1232-41. 10.1378/chest.124.4.1232 14555551
8 Porteous MK Lee JC Lederer DJ Clinical Risk Factors and Prognostic Model for Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017;14 :1514-22. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201610-810OC 28719755
9 Whitson BA Nath DS Johnson AC Risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131 :73-80. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.08.039 16399297
10 Toyoda T Cerier EJ Manerikar AJ Recipient, donor, and surgical factors leading to primary graft dysfunction after lung transplant. J Thorac Dis 2023;15 :399-409. 10.21037/jtd-22-974 36910052
11 Kurihara C Manerikar A Querrey M Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Who Underwent Lung Transplant. JAMA 2022;327 :652-61. 10.1001/jama.2022.0204 35085383
12 Fan E Del Sorbo L Goligher EC An Official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline: Mechanical Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195 :1253-63. 10.1164/rccm.201703-0548ST 28459336
13 Bharat A Querrey M Markov NS Lung transplantation for patients with severe COVID-19. Sci Transl Med 2020;12 :eabe4282. 10.1126/scitranslmed.abe4282 33257409
14 Bharat A Machuca TN Querrey M Early outcomes after lung transplantation for severe COVID-19: a series of the first consecutive cases from four countries. Lancet Respir Med 2021;9 :487-97. 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00077-1 33811829
15 Lang C Jaksch P Hoda MA Lung transplantation for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome in a PCR-positive patient. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8 :1057-60. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30361-1 32857987
16 Frick AE Gan CT Vos R Lung transplantation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A multicenter experience. Am J Transplant 2022;22 :144-53. 10.1111/ajt.16759 34254423
17 Bernard GR Artigas A Brigham KL The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;149 :818-24. 10.1164/ajrccm.149.3.7509706 7509706
18 Tomasko J Prasad SM Dell DO Therapeutic anticoagulation-free extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016;35 :947-8. 10.1016/j.healun.2016.04.005 27235267
19 Kurihara C Walter JM Singer BD Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Can Successfully Support Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Lieu of Mechanical Ventilation. Crit Care Med 2018;46 :e1070-3. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003354 30095500
20 Kurihara C Walter JM Karim A Feasibility of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without Systemic Anticoagulation. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;110 :1209-15. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.02.011 32173339
21 Snell GI Yusen RD Weill D Report of the ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction, part I: Definition and grading-A 2016 Consensus Group statement of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36 :1097-103. 10.1016/j.healun.2017.07.021 28942784
22 Bellomo R Ronco C Kellum JA Acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 2004;8 :R204-12. 10.1186/cc2872 15312219
23 Cerier E Manerikar A Kandula V Postreperfusion Pulmonary Artery Pressure Indicates Primary Graft Dysfunction After Lung Transplant. Ann Thorac Surg 2024;117 :206-212. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.12.013 36521520
24 Yang W Cerier EJ Núñez-Santana FL IL-1β-dependent extravasation of preexisting lung-restricted autoantibodies during lung transplantation activates complement and mediates primary graft dysfunction. J Clin Invest 2022;132 :e157975. 10.1172/JCI157975 36250462
25 Kurihara C Manerikar A Gao CA Outcomes after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Artif Organs 2022;46 :688-96. 10.1111/aor.14090 34694655
26 Manerikar A Watanabe S Kandula V Indwelling Central Venous Catheters Drive Bloodstream Infection During Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support. ASAIO J 2022;68 :859-64. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001575 34593682
27 Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48 :452-8. 10.1038/bmt.2012.244 23208313
28 Criner RN Clausen E Cantu E . Primary graft dysfunction. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2021;26 :321-7. 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000876 33938469
29 Venkata-Subramani M Nunley DR Roman J . Donor factors and risk of primary graft dysfunction and mortality post lung transplantation: A proposed conceptual framework. Clin Transplant 2021;35 :e14480. 10.1111/ctr.14480 34516007
30 Avtaar Singh SS Banner NR Rushton S ISHLT Primary Graft Dysfunction Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcome: A UK National Study. Transplantation 2019;103 :336-43. 10.1097/TP.0000000000002220 29757910
31 Michelson AP Oh I Gupta A Developing machine learning models to predict primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation. Am J Transplant 2024;24 :458-67. 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.07.008 37468109
