Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Saving those who can't wait

Are Martin Holm, Jens Gottlieb
European Respiratory Journal 2019 54: 1901668; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01668-2019
Are Martin Holm
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
2Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: a.m.holm@medisin.uio.no
Jens Gottlieb
3Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
4Biomedical Research in End-stage and Obstructive Disease (BREATH), German Centre for Lung Research (DZL), Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

For the terminally ill, waiting for a suitable organ for a life-saving transplant may take time. In this issue of the ERJ, the results of the French system for prioritising the urgently ill are reported, and this commentary compares it with other systems. http://bit.ly/2Zw0IaX

Lung transplantation is a remarkable accomplishment. It may be the only life-saving treatment option for patients with terminal lung disease, but while some patients may experience a slow progression, others may develop a sudden acceleration and rapid deterioration. The ideal time for the transplantation is therefore not easy to determine. In addition, for a transplant to be possible, the death of another human being is necessary, and the timing of this is inherently unpredictable. Thus, a peculiarity of lung transplantation is that the patients in need are known before the actual treatment is available and it is necessary to create a waiting list.

In an ideal world with plenty of organs for all in need, the management of such a waiting list would not be problematic. Currently, however, the number of patients in need far exceeds the available number of organs, and the proportion of patients dying on the waiting list for lung transplantation is reported to vary from 5% to 30% in current allocation systems. Whenever a matching organ becomes available for transplantation, it seems reasonable to allocate the organ to the matching patient on the waiting list who is least likely to survive until the next organ might arrive (rule of rescue) [1]. This means prioritising the most critically ill patients or those who have features suggesting an unacceptably long waiting time, such as an unusual size (usually very small stature) or sensitisation against human leukocyte antigens. While the latter is commonly considered in allocation schemes for kidney transplantation, most lung allocation systems do not take such features into account, possibly due to lower transplant volumes.

The disadvantage of giving unrestricted priority to those most urgently ill is that such patients may often have lower survival rates after transplant. Thus, most urgency allocation schemes include criteria to reduce the rate of possibly futile transplants. Also, if too many patients fulfil the criteria for priority, the system might lose its discriminatory capacity, and a lack of ability to give priority to anyone would ensue [2]. Finally, factors not directly related to urgency may sometimes be included in the allocation scheme, such as geography or recipient age (table 1). Once prioritised, a patient obviously moves upward on the waiting list to the disadvantage of those who consequently are moved down. In some systems, the prioritised patient may additionally get access to organs from a larger procurement area than before. In such cases, the disadvantage for those not prioritised is shared between a higher number of patients at a higher number of collaborating centres (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

International urgency criteria in lung transplantation

Basically, there are three systems for lung allocation: single centre allocation, national urgency tiers (usually on top of centre allocation), and numerical scoring systems. Single centre allocation means there is just one transplant centre in an organ procurement region. In such systems, whenever an organ becomes available, healthcare professionals select the matching patient on their list perceived to be most needy, usually according to clinical judgment and not according to predefined criteria, although separation into first and second priority tiers according to some criteria may occur. Such centre allocation is used in many countries, especially in countries with only one transplant centre and in systems covering large, sparsely populated areas, such as Canada and Australia.

An alternative to single centre allocation is urgency allocation that stratifies patients into tiers that give supra-regional priority. This is possible where several centres share one organ procurement system, and the tiers may be determined based on clinical judgment or by specific predefined criteria.

Whether regional or supra-regional, priority may also be determined using a numerical scoring system, such as the Lung Allocation Score (LAS). This is a continuous numerical model based on approximately 20 variables that are assumed to predict survival benefit, and it may be used both for local and supra-regional or international prioritisation [3].

To evaluate whether an allocation system actually works as intended, four basic questions should be answered:

  • First, who gets priority? (i.e. are the most imminently urgent patients actually identified by the system, and what other criteria may be at play?)

  • Second, is the system efficient? (i.e. does the system ensure allocation of well-matched organs within reasonable time?)

  • Third, what is lost? (i.e. does the system reduce the overall survival after lung transplantation?)

  • Fourth, what else is affected? (i.e. does the allocation system affect external factors, such as the actual patient selection for lung transplantation, or the number and quality of the organs accepted for transplantation?)

In the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Roussel et al. [4] report that since the introduction of the French High Emergency Lung Transplantation system (HELT) in 2007 until the end of the observation period in 2015, 22% of lung transplant recipients in France were given urgent status. The proportion thus prioritised is substantially higher than the 8% granted urgent status under the Scandiatransplant scheme [5], where the there is a cap on the number of patients permissible for urgent allocation. In the UK, a criteria-based system of urgency tiers, which is similar to the French system based on a preliminary report after its recent introduction, the number allocated for urgency is similar to the HELT (21% urgent and 6% super-urgent) [6]. Translating urgency to a LAS of 50 or above, in Germany this proportion was 28% [7] while the corresponding proportion is slightly lower in the USA, where 15% had a LAS >50 in 2017 [8]. It is hard to judge how well the French HELT system actually identifies urgently ill patients since no data about time on waiting list or death on waiting list is given. The defining criteria seem plausible, but it does seem likely that the system also skews the allocation in ways not directly related to urgency, for instance by excluding patients with COPD and by giving preference to younger patients. Interestingly, however, the same tendency seems to be present in other urgency allocation systems (table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Results of selected urgency allocation systems

The authors did find that the organ matching is stretched in patients allocated by urgency, with more frequent mismatch of size, blood group and cytomegalovirus status, probably with some measurable adverse effects for the recipients. As in an earlier report of the French HELT system [9], Roussel et al. [4] identified a clearly reduced survival in the HELT recipients, with a hazard ratio of death of 1.4 compared to the non-HELT patients. As the authors state, it has to be kept in mind that COPD patients are excluded from these data. The influence the inclusion of these might have had, however, is not reported.

There seems to be reason to believe that the HELT system may have encouraged increased utilisation of donor organs, since the data presented by Roussel et al. [4] also shows that urgently listed patients more frequently receive organs of presumed reduced quality. In an analysis of attributable risks, the authors show that the use of such organs contributed only 4.2% to the reduced survival of the HELT patients.

There are many very different interests to consider for those who manage the waiting list of potential lung transplantation recipients. In allocation the main motive should be that those who are in need and who have a clear benefit do get a transplant and that no one should be left behind. In times of organ shortage, complex decisions have to be made, and Roussel et al. [4] describe some of the consequences of 8 years of practising the HELT system for lung allocation in France. Many questions remain unanswered, but by publishing their data the authors give tentative answers to some and highlight others. In their discussion, they also provide an ethical context to the decisions that need to be made in urgency allocation. Bringing a patient in need and a suitable donated organ together for lung transplantation is indeed remarkable and the report by Roussel et al. [4] shows some of the complexity of this accomplishment.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-01668-2019.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: A.M. Holm has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Gottlieb has nothing to disclose.

  • Received August 22, 2019.
  • Accepted August 26, 2019.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2019
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. McKie J,
    2. Richardson J
    . The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 2407–2419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Stevenson LW
    . Crisis awaiting heart transplantation: sinking the lifeboat. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 1406–1409.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Egan TM,
    2. Murray S,
    3. Bustami RT, et al.
    Development of the new lung allocation system in the United States. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1212–1227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Roussel A,
    2. Sage E,
    3. Massard G, et al.
    Impact of donor, recipient, and matching on survival after high emergency lung transplantation in France. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1900096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Auraen H,
    2. Schultz HHL,
    3. Hammainen P, et al.
    Urgent lung allocation system in the Scandiatransplant countries. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018; 37: 1403–1409.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Rushton S,
    2. Al-Aloul M,
    3. Carby M, et al.
    The introduction of urgent and super-urgent lung allocation schemes in the United Kingdom. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018; 37: S185.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Gottlieb J,
    2. Smits J,
    3. Schramm R, et al.
    Lung transplantation in Germany since the introduction of the Lung Allocation Score. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2017; 114: 179–185.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Valapour M,
    2. Skeans MA,
    3. Smith JM, et al.
    OPTN/SRTR 2015 annual data report: lung. Am J Transplant 2017; 17: Suppl. 1, 357–424.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Boussaud V,
    2. Mal H,
    3. Trinquart L, et al.
    One-year experience with high-emergency lung transplantation in France. Transplantation 2012; 93: 1058–1063.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Palleschi A,
    2. Benazzi E,
    3. Rossi CF, et al.
    Lung Allocation Score System: first Italian experience. Transplant Proc 2019; 51: 190–193.
    OpenUrl
    1. Román A,
    2. Calvo V,
    3. Ussetti P, et al.
    Urgent lung transplantation in Spain. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 3987–3990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Swiss Allocation Rules
    . https://www.swisstransplant.org/de/organspende-transplantation/rechtlichegrundlagen/ Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
    1. UK Allocation Policy
    . http://odt.nhs.uk/pdf/lung_allocation_policy.pdf Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
    1. Scandiatransplant Allocation Guidelines
    . http://www.scandiatransplant.org/members/nttr/Guideline_SHLG_oct_2017.pdf Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
    1. Eurotransplant Allocation Rules
    . https://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/mediaobject.php?file=Chapter6_Thoracic13.pdf Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
    1. Hirji A,
    2. Zhao H,
    3. Lien DC, et al.
    Clinical judgment vs. Lung Allocation Score in predicting waitlist mortality. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: S245–S245.
    OpenUrl
    1. Australia and New Zealand Allocation Guidelines
    . https://www.tsanz.com.au/TSANZ_Clinical_Guidelines_Version1.3%5B6986%5D.pdf Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
    1. USA OPTN Allocation Rules
    . https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1200/optn_policies.pdf Date last accessed: 21 August 2019.
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 54 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 54 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Saving those who can't wait
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Saving those who can't wait
Are Martin Holm, Jens Gottlieb
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2019, 54 (5) 1901668; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01668-2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Saving those who can't wait
Are Martin Holm, Jens Gottlieb
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2019, 54 (5) 1901668; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01668-2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Improving IGRA interpretation: are IP-10 and MIG the solution?
  • CFTR: a missing link between smoking and chronic airway diseases?
  • Update March 2022: ERS guidelines for management of hospitalised COVID-19 patients
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society