Lung transplant waitlist mortality: Height as a predictor of poor outcomes

Britton C. Keeshan, Joseph W. Rossano, Nicole Beck, Rachel Hammond, James Kreindler, Thomas L. Spray, Stephanie Fuller, Samuel Goldfarb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The LAS was designed to minimize pretransplant mortality while maximizing post-transplant outcome. Recipients <12 are not allocated lungs based on LAS. Waitlist mortality has decreased for those >12, but not <12, suggesting this population may be disadvantaged. To identify predictors of waitlist mortality, a retrospective analysis of the UNOS database was performed since implementation of the LAS. There were 16 973 patients listed for lung transplant in the United States; 12 070 (71.1%) were transplanted, and 2498 (14.7%) patients died or were removed from the wait list. Significantly more pediatric patients died or were removed compared with adults (22.0% vs. 14.4%, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, in addition to higher LAS at time of listing (adj. HR1.058, 1.055-1.060), shorter height (1.008, 1.006-1.010), male gender (1.210, 1.110-1.319), and requiring ECMO (1.613, 1.202-2.163) were associated with pretransplant mortality. Post-transplant survival was not affected by height. The current age cutoff may impose limitations within the current lung allocation system in the United States. Height is an independent predictor of waitlist mortality and may be a valuable factor for the development of a comprehensive lung allocation system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)294-300
Number of pages7
JournalPediatric transplantation
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords

  • lung transplant
  • mortality
  • organ allocation
  • outcomes
  • pediatrics
  • waitlist

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lung transplant waitlist mortality: Height as a predictor of poor outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this