Cost effectiveness of commercial portable ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume US lung transplant center

Background: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion during lung transplantation is a resource-intensive technology. In light of its increasing use, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume lung transplant center in the USA. Methods: Patients listed for lung transplantation (2015–2021) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Quality-of-life was approximated by Karnofsky Performance Status scores 1-year post-transplant. Total transplantation encounter and 1-year follow-up costs accrued by our academic center for patients listed from 2018 to 2021 were obtained. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by evaluating the number of patients attaining various Karnofsky scores relative to cost. Results: Of the 13 930 adult patients who underwent lung transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 13 477 (96.7%) used static cold storage and 453 (3.3%) used ex vivo lung perfusion, compared to 30/58 (51.7%) and 28/58 (48.3%), respectively, at our center. Compared to static cold storage, median total costs at 1 year were higher for ex vivo lung perfusion (918 000 dollars vs. 516 000 dollars; p = 0.007) along with the cost of living 1 year with a Karnofsky functional status of 100 after transplant (1 290 000 dollars vs. 841 000 dollars). In simulated scenarios, each Karnofsky-adjusted life year gained by ex vivo lung perfusion was 1.00–1.72 times more expensive. Conclusions: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion is not currently cost-effective at a low-volume transplant centers in the USA, being 1.53 times more expensive per Karnofsky-adjusted life year. Improving donor lung and/or recipient biology during ex vivo lung perfusion may improve its utility for routine transplantation.</p

Cost effectiveness of commercial portable ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume U.S. lung transplant center

Background: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion during lung transplantation is a resource-intensive technology. In light of its increasing use, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume lung transplant center in the USA. Methods: Patients listed for lung transplantation (2015–2021) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Quality-of-life was approximated by Karnofsky Performance Status scores 1-year post-transplant. Total transplantation encounter and 1-year follow-up costs accrued by our academic center for patients listed from 2018 to 2021 were obtained. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by evaluating the number of patients attaining various Karnofsky scores relative to cost. Results: Of the 13 930 adult patients who underwent lung transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 13 477 (96.7%) used static cold storage and 453 (3.3%) used ex vivo lung perfusion, compared to 30/58 (51.7%) and 28/58 (48.3%), respectively, at our center. Compared to static cold storage, median total costs at 1 year were higher for ex vivo lung perfusion (918 000 dollars vs. 516 000 dollars; p = 0.007) along with the cost of living 1 year with a Karnofsky functional status of 100 after transplant (1 290 000 dollars vs. 841 000 dollars). In simulated scenarios, each Karnofsky-adjusted life year gained by ex vivo lung perfusion was 1.00–1.72 times more expensive. Conclusions: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion is not currently cost-effective at a low-volume transplant centers in the USA, being 1.53 times more expensive per Karnofsky-adjusted life year. Improving donor lung and/or recipient biology during ex vivo lung perfusion may improve its utility for routine transplantation.</p