Dataset Information

Single versus double lung transplantation for fibrotic disease-systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:Lung transplantation has long been the accepted therapy for end-stage pulmonary fibrotic disease. Presently, there is an ongoing debate over whether single or bilateral transplantation is the most appropriate treatment for end-stage disease, with a paucity of high-quality evidence comparing the two approaches head-to-head. Methods:This review was performed in accordance with PRISMA recommendations and guidance. Searches were performed on PubMed Central, Scopus and Medline from dates of database inception to September 2019. For the assessed papers, data was extracted from the reviewed text, tables and figures, by two independent authors. Estimated survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method for studies where time-to-event data was provided. Results:Overall, 4,212 unique records were identified from the literature search. Following initial screening and the addition of reference list findings, 83 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 17 were included in the final analysis, with a total of 5,601 patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis illustrated improved survival in patients receiving bilateral lung transplantation (BLTx) than in those receiving unilateral transplantation for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at all time intervals, with aggregated survival for BLTx at 57%, 35.3% and 24% at 5-, 10- and 15-year follow-up, respectively. Survival rates for SLTx were 50%, 27.8% and 13.9%, respectively. Conclusions:Whilst a number of studies present conflicting results with respect to short-term transplantation outcomes, BLTx confers improved long-term survival over SLTx, with large-scale registries supporting findings from single- and multi-center studies. Through an aggregation of published survival data, this meta-analysis identified improved survival in patients receiving BLTx versus SLTx at all time intervals.

SUBMITTER: Wilson-Smith AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7049556 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single versus double lung transplantation for fibrotic disease-systematic review.

Wilson-Smith Ashley R AR Kim Yong Sul YS Evans Georgina E GE Yan Tristan D TD

Annals of cardiothoracic surgery 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Lung transplantation has long been the accepted therapy for end-stage pulmonary fibrotic disease. Presently, there is an ongoing debate over whether single or bilateral transplantation is the most appropriate treatment for end-stage disease, with a paucity of high-quality evidence comparing the two approaches head-to-head.<h4>Methods</h4>This review was performed in accordance with PRISMA recommendations and guidance. Searches were performed on PubMed Central, Scopus and Medli ...[more]

PMID: 32175235

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lung transplantation remains the only curative treatment for end-stage lung disease, conferring a better survival for some IPF patients, but whether they should receive double lung transplantation (DLT) or single lung transplantation (SLT) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine which type of lung transplantation was more effective and relatively safe in IPF patients by meta-analysis. METHODS:Publications comparing overall survival (OS) or other perioperative characteristics between IPF patients undergoing SLT and DLT were selected from electronic databases. The hazard ratios (HRs) were abstracted or calculated to evaluate the survival outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) were used to compare the causes of death or perioperative parameters. A random-effect model was used to combine data. Heterogeneity was quantified by means of an I2 with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The publication bias was estimated using the Eggers test with Begg's funnel plots. RESULTS:16 studies with 17,872 IPF cases who met the inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis. SLT was associated with declined post-transplant FEV1% (MD = -15.37, 95% CI:-22.28,-8.47; P<0.001), FVC % (MD = -12.52, 95% CI:-19.45,-5.59; P<0.001) and DLCO% (MD = -13.85, 95% CI:-20.42,-7.29; P<0.001), but no significant advantage of DLT over SLT was seen in the overall survival outcome (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29; P = 0.391). Subgroup analyses for studies of follow-up period ? 60 months also showed similar results (all P-values>0.05). Moreover, there was fewer deaths attributable to primary graft dysfunction in SLT recipients (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.2-0.48; P<0.001), while more patients with SLT died of malignancy (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 2.06-5.77; P<0.001). CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that DLT was associated with better postoperative pulmonary function, but there was no difference in long-term overall survival between patients undergoing DLT and SLT. However, further high-quality and large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews. METHODS:We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way. RESULTS:The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.

Dataset Information

Single versus double lung transplantation for fibrotic disease-systematic review.

Publications

Single versus double lung transplantation for fibrotic disease-systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets