The good clinical result of lung transplantation is constantly undermined by the high incidence of infection, which negatively impacts on function and survival. Moreover, infections may also have immunological interactions that play a role in the acute rejection and in the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction. There is a temporal sequence in the types of infection that affects lung allograft: in the first postoperative month bacteria are the most frequent cause of infection; following this phase, cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii are common. Fungal infections are particularly feared due to their association with bronchial complication and high mortality. Scrupulous postoperative surveillance is mandatory for the successful management of lung transplantation patients with respect to early detection and treatment of infections. This paper is aimed to address clinicians in the management of the major infectious complications that affect the lung transplant population.

The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) suggested two sets of criteria in 2001 and 2007 to define clinical stability in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The present study aimed to evaluate the level of agreement between these two sets of criteria and how well they can predict clinical outcomes.A retrospective cohort study was carried out of 487 consecutive patients hospitalised with CAP. Level of agreement was tested using a survival curve analysis, while prediction of outcomes at 30-day follow-up was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.A discrepancy between ATS 2001 and ATS/IDSA 2007 criteria in identifying clinical stability was detected in 62% of the patients. The median (interquartile range) time to clinical stability was 2 (1–4) days based on ATS 2001 and 3 (2–5) days based on ATS/IDSA 2007 criteria (p = 0.012). The daily distribution of patients who reached clinical stability evaluated with both sets was different (p = 0.002). The ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.705 for the ATS 2001 criteria and 0.714 for ATS/IDSA 2007 criteria (p = 0.645).ATS 2001 and ATS/IDSA 2007 criteria for clinical stability in hospitalised patients with CAP are clinically equivalent and both can be used in clinical practice as well as in clinical research.

Editor’s Perspective: What We Already Know about This Topic: What This Article Tells Us That Is New: Background: Survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have long-term impairment of pulmonary function and health-related quality of life, but little is known of outcomes of ARDS survivors treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of ARDS patients treated with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Methods: A prospective, observational study of adults with ARDS (January 2013 to December 2015) was conducted at a single center. One year after discharge, survivors underwent pulmonary function tests, computed tomography of the chest, and health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Results: Eighty-four patients (34 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 50 non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) were studied; both groups had similar characteristics at baseline, but comorbidity was more common in non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (23 of 50 vs. 4 of 34, 46% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), and severity of hypoxemia was greater in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (median Pao ₂/Fio2 72 [interquartile range, 50 to 103] vs. 114 [87 to 133] mm Hg, P < 0.001) and respiratory compliance worse. At 1 yr, survival was similar (22/33 vs. 28/47, 66% vs. 59%; P = 0.52), and pulmonary function and computed tomography were almost normal in both groups. Non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had lower health-related quality-of-life scores and higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder. Conclusions: Despite more severe respiratory failure at admission, 1-yr survival of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients was not different from that of non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients; each group had almost full recovery of lung function, but non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had greater impairment of health-related quality of life.