FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1979968881> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1979968881 endingPage "707" @default.
• W1979968881 startingPage "705" @default.
• W1979968881 abstract "Successful human lung transplantation has evolved significantly since 1963, when the first lung transplant recipients lived only a few days after transplantation. Changes in surgical techniques and advances in immunosuppressive therapy have been credited with the advancing lung transplantation, making it an invaluable tool for the management of advanced respiratory diseases.1Trulock EP State of the art: lung transplantation.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997; 155: 798-818Crossref Scopus (528) Google Scholar This is apparent by the growing number of transplants performed each year and by the increase in the number of patients listed for transplantation. A gross disparity exists, however, between the number of potential recipients and the number of donor organs available, resulting in many patients dying while on the waiting list.2US TransplantThe Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Available at.http://www.ustransplant.orgDate: 2004Google Scholar, 3The International Society for Heart and Lung TransplantationHeart/Lung Transplant Registry. Available at.http://www.ishlt.org/registries//slides.aspDate: 2004Google Scholar Due to long wait times, transplant physicians are no longer just faced with trying to improve survival after transplantation, but are now facing the challenge of improving a patient's chances of survival while on the waiting list for transplantation. As a further challenge, the natural history of various advanced lung diseases vary and are somewhat unpredictable. This is especially true of diseases for which we do not have adequate prognostic scales, unlike cystic fibrosis or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.4Liou TG Cahill BC Alder FR et al.Selection of patients with cystic fibrosis for lung transplantation.Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2002; 86: 535-541Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar, 5Timmer SJ Karamzadeh AM Yung GL et al.Predicting survival of lung transplantation candidates with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia.Chest. 2002; 122: 779-784Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar As a result, predicting survival in specific advanced pulmonary diseases is one of the major issues confounding referral for transplantation. As waiting list times appear to be increasing from 24 months to a median of 46 months, questions are now being raised regarding the appropriate disease-specific time for referral to ensure maximum survival before and after transplantation.3The International Society for Heart and Lung TransplantationHeart/Lung Transplant Registry. Available at.http://www.ishlt.org/registries//slides.aspDate: 2004Google Scholar Much attention has been given to better defining lung transplant candidacy guidelines in order to allow more efficient and equitable distribution of organs and to improve survival. Recent strides toward a “lung allocation score”6Pierson RN Barr ML McCullough KP et al.Thoracic organ transplantation.Am J Transplant. 2004; 9: 93-105Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar are laudable efforts in this direction. However, much less attention has been given to the timing of referral of these patients to a lung transplant center for initial lung transplant evaluation. In this issue of CHEST (see page 1006), Nathan examines this issue in light of the 1998 lung transplantation candidacy guidelines set forth by the American Thoracic Society in conjunction with the European Respiratory Society and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. The author advocates earlier referral to a lung transplant center is in the best interest of patients with advanced respiratory diseases. All physicians who evaluate patients for lung transplantation have seen patients cannot be placed on the waiting list because they are referred too late in the course of their illness and are too sick and out of the “lung transplant window” by the time they are seen. In addition, such referral places the patient with an advanced lung disease in the care of a physician who has experience dealing with such patients, has the resources of a large tertiary care center at his/her disposal, and may be aware of potential therapeutic options from which the patient may benefit. Early referral also allows for appropriate processing and management of issues prior to listing, may improve survival during the waiting period, and may alleviate the patient's and family's anxiety and distress as they deal with their illness.6Pierson RN Barr ML McCullough KP et al.Thoracic organ transplantation.Am J Transplant. 2004; 9: 93-105Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar, 7Glanville AR Estenne M Indications, patient selection, and timing of referral for lung transplantation.Eur Respir J. 2003; 22: 845-852Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar Early referral poses challenges and creates potential inequities. For example, some patients are listed early in the course of their disease in order to accrue waiting time.6Pierson RN Barr ML McCullough KP et al.Thoracic organ transplantation.Am J Transplant. 2004; 9: 93-105Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar Early referrals may also pose an unnecessary burden for the transplant center utilizing resources (including physician and coordinator time) in evaluating patients who may not be appropriate for transplantation and diverting these away from appropriate patients, which could delay their evaluation. Another sometimes overlooked factor is the tremendous regional variation in wait times from a few months at some centers to years at others. In addition to priority on the list, waiting time on the lung transplant list is the end result of a number of local and regional factors that may be very difficult to modify but which need to be addressed. Such factors include the number of centers performing the procedure in a given geographic area, available organs in a given population base, and the rate of consent to donate. Other center-specific factors include how aggressive the center is in pursuing “marginal” donors, listing candidates considered high risk by other centers, and the level of expertise and comfort with combined procedures, such as transplant with bypass surgery or valve replacement, or transplanting more than one organ. Yet another challenge to optimizing referral for lung transplantation is that survival prediction modules based on spirometry alone are inadequate. Indeed, fuller prediction requires more comprehensive modules that include a variety of parameters including subjective breathlessness, weight loss, exercise tolerance, hospitalizations, and lung morphology in reviewing diseases such as COPD and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The role of newer therapies such as lung volume reduction in COPD and the use of prostanoids and endothelin antagonists in pulmonary arterial hypertension should be included in such a model. There is a clear need for more studies to develop accurate, disease-specific predictors of progression. For example, measures such as the 6-min walk test and the brain natriuretic peptide in assessing pulmonary arterial hypertension severity could be used in combination with other prognostic parameters to determine response to therapy and timing for referral.8Mehra MR, Kobashigawa JA. Advances in Heart and Lung Transplantation 2004: Report from the 24th International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Annual Meeting, San Francisco. April 21–24, 2004. J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23:925–930Google Scholar, 9Sitbon O Humbert M Nunes H et al.Long-term intravenous epoprostenol infusion in primary pulmonary hypertension: prognostic factors and survival.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 780-788Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1207) Google Scholar Articles such as this one by Nathan will encourage studies that shed new light on the rates of progression and expected survival for various advanced respiratory diseases and find better surrogate markers of disease progression. Another benefit may be increased dialogue in the lung transplant community to better define guidelines for referring physicians in the context of emerging developments, eg, new data regarding the natural history of advanced diseases such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, new disease-specific survival analysis,9Sitbon O Humbert M Nunes H et al.Long-term intravenous epoprostenol infusion in primary pulmonary hypertension: prognostic factors and survival.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 780-788Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1207) Google Scholar and possible alternative therapies that may delay the option for transplantation in certain disease states such as COPD and pulmonary arterial hypertension. The new lung allocation strategy may, over the years, help improve our understanding of this and other related issues. Successful lung transplant centers usually have a close working relationship and partnership with their referring physicians to promote better care for their patients and appropriate, timely referrals. Education of physicians and other health-care providers caring for these patients is integral to this process. Overall, we feel that the current general recommendation that evaluation for lung transplantation should be sought when activities of daily living are significantly impaired may be one that unintentionally causes patients to be referred too late in the course of their disease, thus impacting survival on the waiting list and after transplantation. Timely referral based on more comprehensive and accurate prediction models would help optimize patient outcomes and resource utilization and allow patients to make a more informed choice about their options." @default.
• W1979968881 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1979968881 creator A5027687662 @default.
• W1979968881 creator A5086670830 @default.
• W1979968881 date "2005-03-01" @default.
• W1979968881 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1979968881 title "Referral for Lung Transplantation" @default.
• W1979968881 cites W127034668 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W143858100 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W1608243522 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W1975270990 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W1986063899 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W1990920467 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2003034022 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2026933775 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2038877559 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2041643221 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2057342375 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2076257659 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2082343946 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2093198834 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2103551786 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2103557193 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2104907778 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2107149927 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2113782980 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2115607942 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2127963725 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2132785271 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2136203952 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2150598434 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2171449573 @default.
• W1979968881 cites W2333059091 @default.
• W1979968881 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.127.3.705" @default.
• W1979968881 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15764746" @default.
• W1979968881 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1979968881 type Work @default.
• W1979968881 sameAs 1979968881 @default.
• W1979968881 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W1979968881 countsByYear W19799688812012 @default.
• W1979968881 countsByYear W19799688812020 @default.
• W1979968881 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1979968881 hasAuthorship W1979968881A5027687662 @default.
• W1979968881 hasAuthorship W1979968881A5086670830 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C2776135927 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C2777714996 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C2781448352 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C2911091166 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C126322002 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C177713679 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C2776135927 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C2777714996 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C2781448352 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C2911091166 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C512399662 @default.
• W1979968881 hasConceptScore W1979968881C71924100 @default.
• W1979968881 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1979968881 hasLocation W19799688811 @default.
• W1979968881 hasLocation W19799688812 @default.
• W1979968881 hasOpenAccess W1979968881 @default.
• W1979968881 hasPrimaryLocation W19799688811 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W1986842757 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W2012591382 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W2033140325 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W2318299045 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W2417519090 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W2471678635 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W3031286556 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W3141986935 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W4210884284 @default.
• W1979968881 hasRelatedWork W4241758697 @default.
• W1979968881 hasVolume "127" @default.
• W1979968881 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1979968881 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1979968881 magId "1979968881" @default.
• W1979968881 workType "article" @default.