Heart re-transplantation in Eurotransplant

Internationally 3% of the donor hearts are distributed to re-transplant patients. In Eurotransplant, only patients with a primary graft dysfunction (PGD) within 1 week after heart transplantation (HTX) are indicated for high urgency listing. The aim of this study is to provide evidence for the discussion on whether these patients should still be allocated with priority. All consecutive HTX performed in the period 1981-2015 were included. Multivariate Cox' model was built including: donor and recipient age and gender, ischaemia time, recipient diagnose, urgency status and era. The study population included 18 490 HTX, of these 463 (2.6%) were repeat transplants. The major indications for re-HTX were cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (50%), PGD (26%) and acute rejection (21%). In a multivariate model, compared with first HTX hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval for repeat HTX were 2.27 (1.83-2.82) for PGD, 2.24 (1.76-2.85) for acute rejection and 1.22 (1.00-1.48) for CAV (P < 0.0001). Outcome after cardiac re-HTX strongly depends on the indication for re-HTX with acceptable outcomes for CAV. In contrast, just 47.5% of all hearts transplanted in patients who were re-transplanted for PGD still functioned at 1-month post-transplant. Alternative options like VA-ECMO should be first offered before opting for acute re-transplantation

Lung allocation score: The Eurotransplant model versus the revised US model - a cross-sectional study

Both Eurotransplant (ET) and the US use the lung allocation score (LAS) to allocate donor lungs. In 2015, the US implemented a new algorithm for calculating the score while ET has fine-tuned the original model using business rules. A comparison of both models in a contemporary patient cohort was performed. The rank positions and the correlation between both scores were calculated for all patients on the active waiting list in ET. On February 6th 2017, 581 patients were actively listed on the lung transplant waiting list. The median LAS values were 32.56 and 32.70 in ET and the US, respectively. The overall correlation coefficient between both scores was 0.71. Forty-three per cent of the patients had a < 2 point change in their LAS. US LAS was more than two points lower for 41% and more than two points higher for 16% of the patients. Median ranks and the 90th percentiles for all diagnosis groups did not differ between both scores. Implementing the 2015 US LAS model would not significantly alter the current waiting list in ET