The use of intraoperative mechanical support during lung transplantation has traditionally been a controversial topic. Trends for intraoperative mechanical support strategies swing like a pendulum. Historically, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was the modality of choice during transplantation. It provides full hemodynamic support including oxygenation and decarboxylation. Surgical exposure is improved by permitting the drainage of the heart and provides more permissive retraction. CPBs contain drainage reservoirs with hand-held pump suction catheters promoting blood conservation through collection and re-circulation. But CPB has its disadvantages. It is known to cause systemic inflammation and coagulopathy. CPB requires high doses of heparinization, which increases bleeding risks. As transplantation progressed, off-pump transplantation began to trend as a preferable option. ECMO, however, has many of the benefits of CPB with less of the risk. Outcomes were improved with ECMO compared to CPB. CPB has a higher blood transfusion requirement, a higher need for post-operative ECMO support, a higher re-intubation rate, high rates of kidney injury and need for hemodialysis, longer ICU stays, higher incidences of PGD grade 3, as well as overall in-hospital mortality when compared with ECMO use. The focus now shifts to using intraoperative mechanical support to protect the graft, helping to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury and allowing for lung protective ventilator settings. Studies show that the routine use of ECMO during transplantation decreases the rate of primary graft dysfunction and many adverse outcomes including ventilator time, need for tracheostomy, renal failure, post-operative ECMO requirements, and others. As intraoperative planned ECMO is considered a safe and effective approach, with improved survival and better overall outcomes compared to both unplanned ECMO implementation and off-pump transplantation, its routine use should be taken into consideration as standard protocol.

Lung transplantation can greatly improve quality of life and extend survival in those with end-stage lung disease. In order to derive the maximal benefit from such a procedure, patients must be carefully selected and be otherwise healthy enough to survive a high-risk surgery and sometimes prolonged immunosuppressive therapy following surgery. Patients therefore must be critically assessed prior to being listed for transplantation with close attention paid towards assessment of cardiovascular health and operative risk. One of the biggest dictators of this is coronary artery disease. In this review article, we discuss the assessment and management of coronary artery disease in the potential lung transplant candidate.

Provided advancements in Lung Transplantation (LT) survival, the efficacy of Lung Retransplantation (LRT) has often been debated. Decades of retrospective analyses on thousands of LRT cases provide insight enabling predictive patient criteria for retransplantation. This review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed search engine was utilized for articles relating to LRT published through August 2023, and a systematic review was performed using Covidence software version 2.0 (Veritas Health Innovation, Australia). Careful patient selection is vital for successful LRT, and the benefit leans in favor of those in optimal health following their initial transplant. However, the lack of a standardized approach remains apparent. Through an in-depth review, we will address considerations such as chronic lung allograft dysfunction, timing to LRT, surgical and perioperative complexity, and critical ethical concerns that guide the current practice as it relates to this subset of patients for whom LRT is the only therapeutic option available.

Introduction: The optimal treatment for Secondary Pulmonary Hypertension from End-Stage Lung Disease remains controversial. Double Lung Transplantation is widely regarded as the treatment of choice as it eliminates all diseased parenchyma and introduces a large volume of physiologically normal allograft. By comparison, the role of single lung transplantation for pulmonary hypertension (PAH) is less clear. The remaining diseased lung will limit clinical improvements and permit downstream sequelae; including residual cough, recurrent infection, and continued pulmonary hypertension. But not every patient can undergo DLT. Advanced age, frailty, co-morbid conditions, and limited availability of organs will all affect surgical candidacy and can offset the benefits of double lung procedures. Studies that compare SLT and DLT do not commonly explore the utility of single lung procedures even though multiple theoretical advantages exist; including reduced waiting times, less waitlist mortality, fewer surgical complications, and lower operative mortality. Worse, multiple forms of publication and selection bias may favor DLT in registry-based studies. In this review, we present the prevailing literature on single and double lung transplants in patients with secondary pulmonary hypertension and clarify the potential utility of these procedures. Materials and Methods: A PubMed search for English-language articles exploring single and double lung transplants in the setting of secondary pulmonary hypertension was conducted from 1990 to 2023. Key words included “single lung transplant”, “double lung transplant”, “pulmonary hypertension”, “rejection”, “complications”, “extracorporeal membranous oxygenation”, “death”, and all appropriate Boolean operators. We prioritized research from retrospective studies that evaluated clinical outcomes from single centers. Conclusions: The question is not whether DLT is better at resolving lung disease; instead, we must ask if SLT is an acceptable form of therapy in a select group of high-risk patients. Further research should focus on how best to identify recipients that may benefit from each type of procedure, and the clinical utility of perioperative VA ECMO.