No abstract

BackgroundAlthough the number of lung transplantations (LTx) performed worldwide for COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still low, there is general agreement that this treatment can save a subgroup of most severly ill patients with irreversible lung damage. However, the true proportion of patients eligible for LTx, the overall outcome and the impact of LTx to the pandemic are unknown.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed using a nationwide registry of hospitalised patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection admitted between January 1, 2020 and May 30, 2021 in Austria. Patients referred to one of the two Austrian LTx centers were analyzed and grouped into patients accepted and rejected for LTx. Detailed outcome analysis was performed for all patients who received a LTx for post-COVID-19 ARDS and compared to patients who underwent LTx for other indications.ResultsBetween January 1, 2020 and May 30, 2021, 39.485 patients were hospitalised for COVID-19 in Austria. 2323 required mechanical ventilation, 183 received extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. 106 patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS were referred for LTx. Of these, 19 (18%) underwent LTx. 30-day mortality after LTx was 0% for COVID-19 ARDS transplant recipients. With a median follow-up of 134 (47–450) days, 14/19 patients are alive.ConclusionsEarly referral of ECMO patients to a LTx center is pivotal in order to select patients eligible for LTx. Transplantation offers excellent midterm outcomes and should be incorporated in the treatment algorithm of post-COVID-19 ARDS.

OBJECTIVES This study reports the results of an international expert consensus process evaluating the assessment of intraoperative air leaks (IAL) and treatment of postoperative prolonged air leaks (PAL) utilizing a Delphi process, with the aim of helping standardization and improving practice. METHODS A panel of 45 questions was developed and submitted to an international working group of experts in minimally invasive lung cancer surgery. Modified Delphi methodology was used to review responses, including 3 rounds of voting. The consensus was defined a priori as >50% agreement among the experts. Clinical practice standards were graded as recommended or highly recommended if 50–74% or >75% of the experts reached an agreement, respectively. RESULTS A total of 32 experts from 18 countries completed the questionnaires in all 3 rounds. Respondents agreed that PAL are defined as >5 days and that current risk models are rarely used. The consensus was reached in 33/45 issues (73.3%). IAL were classified as mild (<100 ml/min; 81%), moderate (100–400 ml/min; 71%) and severe (>400 ml/min; 74%). If mild IAL are detected, 68% do not treat; if moderate, consensus was not; if severe, 90% favoured treatment. CONCLUSIONS This expert consensus working group reached an agreement on the majority of issues regarding the detection and management of IAL and PAL. In the absence of prospective, randomized evidence supporting most of these clinical decisions, this document may serve as a guideline to reduce practice variation.