Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 37. Issue 3.
Pages 206-208 (April 2013)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 37. Issue 3.
Pages 206-208 (April 2013)
Update in Intensive Care: Transplants
DOI: 10.1016/j.medin.2012.12.003
Full text access
The impact of lung transplantation on ICU personnel
El impacto del trasplante pulmonar sobre el personal de la UCI
Visits
2042
N. Masnoua,??
Corresponding author
nmasnou@vhebron.net

Corresponding author.
, J. Rellob
a Transplant Coordination Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
b Critical Care Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, CIBERES and VHIR, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
This item has received
2042
Visits
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text

During recent months, a series of up-dating articles about lung transplant published by members of PLUTO Network (Postoperative Lung Transplant Network) and Grupo de Trasplantes de SEMICYUC, have appeared in Medicina Intensiva.

Even though lung transplant (LT) results have been improving over the last thirty years, and it is accepted as a real therapeutic option for patients in end-stage disease, some issues are still open. Dr. Rello's article lays down a challenge in terms of developing strategies to increase lung retrieval rates.1

Generally speaking, efficiency in lung retrieval is very poor, due to the physiological changes deriving from brain death (BD) and difficulties in the management of potential donors. Efficiency in lung harvesting is usually under 16% of all potential donors.2 This is due to the fact that lung dysfunction is frequent in patients with severe brain damage; between 15 and 20% develop ALI/SDRA.3 This, together with changes related to BD such as neurogenic oedema or related to base pathologies including pneumonia or bronchoaspiration, explain the deterioration in oxygen exchange.

Different authors agree that having a specialized team for managing potential donors will result in more organs for transplant.4–6 Although there is no unique treatment model when talking about donor management, there are different strategies called “protective strategies” related to the mechanical ventilation parameters which are widely accepted.7 Some authors propose “aggressive” procurement such as the use of systematic bronchoscopy or recruitment manoeuvres with high or very high PEEP.4,8

Scarcity of grafts for transplant is partially due to poor efficiency and the fact that there is no evidence supporting the ultra-strict accepted criteria. Present expanded criteria includes: age>55, smoking antecedents, abnormal chest X-ray (unilateral: for aspiration or trauma), or even known positive sputum culture and the use of organs with Pa02<300mmHg through recruitment manoeuvres or ex vivo perfusion.9 Perhaps the moment has arrived to extend current criteria even further.10

Another proposed strategy to increase the organ pool is the use of lungs from NHBD (non heart-beating donors): Maastricht type II (uncontrolled donors) and type III (controlled), although these represent a small percentage of transplanted lungs. Results with organs proceeding from NHBD type II are acceptable related to mortality and survival rates.9

Yet some other strategies are far removed from our desired intention, for example, the risky procedure of living lung donation.

Dr. Masclans et al., state in their special article11 that whilst training for resident doctors in terms of organ donation is of good quality, as courses are performed all over the country, there is little or no emphasis at the level of immediate transplant post-operatory care, management of immunosuppressant treatment and complications, specifically linked to rejection and infection. Bearing in mind that the current training plan dates back to 1996, some degree of modernization should be considered.

Dr. Masclans et al. suggest that training in these increasingly complex areas could be useful for both resident doctors and indeed any doctors coming into contact with this type of patients. To be familiar with the process will make dealing with this kind of patients easier.

Moving on to the main issues within the post-operatory period we find three related articles: primary graft dysfunction (PGD), antibiotic prophylaxis/infectious disease and advances in immunosuppression.

PGD is a common postoperative complication; between 15 and 20% of patients will present some degree of dysfunction. The Consensus Document of ISHLT in 200512 defines as a non cardiogenic pulmonary oedema less than 72h of reperfusion and at the same time alterations of lung parenchyma. The degree of PGD (1-3) correlated to the outcome and survival rates.13 Treatment, as referred to by Dr. Suárez López et al.14 should be underpinned from two perspectives: (1) that of excellent donor management (attempting to minimize the inflammatory response due to BD) and avoidance of further complications, where the awareness and dedication of intensive care doctors is indispensable. (2) Managing the post-operative period so as to anticipate the following kinds of problems: hemodynamic stabilization, antibiotic prophylactic treatment, individualization of immunosuppression, taking into account the physiological condition of this type of patient.

Graft rejection is the next challenge to solve in LT. An acceptable balance between immunosuppression and side effects is the sought-after end-point.

We now know the different mechanisms involved in rejection. Up till now we have only paid attention to the cellular rejection (mediated by T cells). Nowadays we also know that humoral rejection (mediated by antibody–anti HLA) influences the immediate and long term LT outcome.

One of the difficulties in this field is the current impossibility of performing the cross-match before surgery in order to not only select the ideal match, but also the amount of antigens carried by the transplanted graft.

An excellent revision is performed by Dr. J.M. Borro regarding the evolution of immune response mechanisms and the different therapeutic regimes currently in place,15 although the immunosuppressive regime in LT is far from being a uniform practice. Induction treatment has increased in the last 8 years (with polyclonal antilymphocyte globulins at the beginning, converting to interleukin-2 receptor antagonists and alemtuzumab today). Induction with IL-2R is correlated with better long term outcomes, with a lower number of acute rejection episodes and delayed kidney lesions.16 However, in 2010, only 50% of patients had some type of induction representing a clear drop in this practice (ISHLT 2012).14 The majority of immunosuppressive treatments include three drugs: a calcineurin inhibitor, an anti-proliferative drug and steroids. In the long term immunosuppressive regime, trends are more prone to maintain tacrolimus plus mycophenolic acid although there are other possibilities such as cyclosporine or azatioprine.15,17 Ideally, the immunosuppressive regime should be tailored to each patient.

Whilst infection is relatively common in the post-operative period, there is no consensus regarding the antibiotic prophylaxis. The use of double or triple antibiotic therapy immediately after the surgery is common, followed by the introduction of antifungals18 and any cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis. So far the length of treatment after LT has not been agreed upon.

Dr. J. Sacanell states, as a result of a survey fulfilled for the seven active LT programs in Spain, that the most frequent prophylactic antifungal used is inhaled amphotericin B, which changes with the appearance of bronchospasms to a second line antifungal. In that sense, anidulafungin is used as a preferred second line treatment, even though micafungin has provided greater efficiency against Aspergillus sp. and Candida sp.19

Finally, a different approach is offered by Dr. R. Vicente et al.20 who considered the use of mechanical devices like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) which have created some expectation. ECMO could be used (and the results are acceptable) as a bridge to transplant (BTT)21 in extremely ill patients who would otherwise die while awaiting a graft, or even in conscious patients who are on waiting list.22 It is also used for management of primary graft dysfunction within the postoperative period, allowing physicians to sustain treatment and offer the possibility of survival to some patients while the graft is recovering.

It is important not to forget that LT is a relatively new field of transplant and consequently all technological and other advances are currently at the experimental stage. Much work and effort is still required by all the professionals involved.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References
[1]
J. Rello.
Lung transplant: an emerging challenge in the ICU.
Med Intensiva, 36 (2012), pp. 504-505
[2]
L.F. Angel, D.J. Levine, M.I. Restrepo, S. Johnson, E. Sako, A. Carpenter, et al.
Impact of a lung transplantation donor-management protocol on lung donation and recipient outcomes.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 174 (2006), pp. 710-716
[3]
L. Mascia, I. Mastromauro, S. Viberti, M. Vincenzi, M. Zanello.
Management to optimize organ procurement in brain dead donors.
Minerva Anestesiol, 75 (2009), pp. 125-133
[4]
K. Singbartl, R. Murugan, A.M. Kaynar, D.W. Crippen, S.A. Tisherman, K. Shutterly, et al.
Intensivist-led management of brain-dead donors is associated with an increase in organ recovery for transplantation.
Am J Transplant, 11 (2011), pp. 1517-1521
[5]
M. Straznicka, D.M. Follette, M.D. Eisner, P.F. Roberts, R.L. Menza, W.D. Babcock.
Aggressive management of lung donors classified as unacceptable: excellent recipient survival one year after transplantation.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 124 (2002), pp. 250-258
[6]
D.J. Malinoski, M.C. Daly, M.S. Patel, C. Oley-Graybill, C.E. Foster, A. Salim.
Achieving donor management goals before deceased donor procurement is associated with more organs transplanted per donor.
J Trauma, 71 (2011), pp. 990-995
[7]
L. Mascia, D. Pasero, A.S. Slutsky, M.J. Arguis, M. Berardino, S. Grasso, et al.
Effect of a lung protective strategy for organ donors on eligibility and availability of lungs for transplantation: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA, 304 (2010), pp. 2620-2627
[8]
E. Miñambres, M.A. Ballesteros, E. Rodrigo, A. García-Miguélez, J. Llorca, J.C. Ruiz, et al.
Aggressive lung donor management increases graft procurement without increasing renal graft loss after transplantation.
[9]
D.A. Munguía-Canales, J.L. Campo-Cañaveral de la Cruz, S. Crowley-Carrasco, D. Lazo-Pérez, L. Macías-Sotuela, A. Varela-de Ugarte.
Lung transplantation with uncontrolled non-heart-beating donor.
Cir Cir, 80 (2012), pp. 86-91
[10]
M.P. Moretti, C. Betto, M. Gambacorta, S. Vesconi, M. Scalamogna, E.M. Benazzi, et al.
Lung procurement for transplantation: new criteria for lung donor selection.
Transplant Proc, 42 (2010), pp. 1053-1055
[11]
J.R. Masclans, R. Vicente, M.A. Ballesteros, J. Sabater, O. Roca.
Objetivos docentes en la formación de médicos residentes en trasplante de órganos sólidos.
Med Intensiva, 36 (2012), pp. 584-588
[12]
J.D. Christie, M. Carby, R. Bag, P. Corris, M. Hertz, D. Weill.
ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction. Report of the ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction. Part II. Definition. A consensus statement of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.
J Heart Lung Transplant, 24 (2005), pp. 1454-1459
[13]
S.M. Arcasoy, A. Fisher, R.R. Hachem, M. Scavuzzo, Ware LB.
ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction. Report of the ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction. Part V. Predictors and outcomes.
J Heart Lung Transplant, 24 (2005), pp. 1483-1488
[14]
V.J. Suárez López, E. Miñambres, J.C. Robles Arista, M.A. Ballesteros.
Disfunción primaria del injerto tras el trasplante pulmonar.
Med Intensiva, 36 (2012), pp. 506-512
[15]
J.M. Borro.
Avances en la inmunosupresión del trasplante pulmonar.
Med Intensiva, 37 (2013), pp. 44-49
[16]
J.D. Christie, L.B. Edwards, A.Y. Kucheryavaya, P. Aurora, F. Dobbels, R. Kirk, et al.
The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: twenty-seventh official adult lung and heart-lung transplant report—2010.
J Heart Lung Transplant, (2010), pp. 1104-1118
[17]
E. Coll, F. Santos, P. Ussetti, M. Canela, J.M. Borro, M. De La Torre, et al.
Registro Español de Trasplante Pulmonar: primer informe de resultados (2006–2010).
Arch Bronconeumol, 49 (2013), pp. 70-78
[18]
J. Sacanell, T. Rey, E. Lopez, R. Vicente, M.A. Ballesteros, R. Iranzo, et al.
Profilaxis antifúngica en el postoperatorio de trasplante de pulmón en España.
Med Intensiva, (2012),
[19]
E. Marino, J.C. Gallagher.
Prophylactic antifungal agents used after lung transplantation.
Ann Pharmacother, 44 (2010), pp. 546-556
[20]
Vicente R, Moreno I, Soria A, Ramos F, Torregrosa S. Oxigenador de membrana extracorpóreo en el trasplante pulmonar Med Intensiva. 2012. 6 Oct. Available online.
[21]
G. Lang, S. Taghavi, C. Aigner, F. Rényi-Vámos, P. Jaksch, V. Augustin, et al.
Primary lung transplantation after bridge with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a plea for a shift in our paradigms for indications.
Transplantation, 93 (2012), pp. 729-736
[22]
T. Fuehner, C. Kuehn, J. Hadem, O. Wiesner, J. Gottlieb, I. Tudorache, et al.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in awake patients as bridge to lung transplantation.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 185 (2012), pp. 763-768
Copyright © 2012. Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMICYUC
Idiomas
Medicina Intensiva (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.