Advertisement

ABO-identical matching has no superiority in long-term survival in comparison to ABO-compatible matching in lung transplantation

  • Mohammed FakhroEmail author
  • Hillevi Larsson
  • Malin Malmsjö
  • Lars Algotsson
  • Sandra Lindstedt
Open Access
Research article

Abstract

Background

Even though identical blood group matching between recipient and donor is preferred, it is still not clear by how much this improves the outcome for patients who received a lung transplant (LTx), or whether there is any survival benefit. Earlier studies have yielded ambiguous results and few have investigated long-term survival. The aim of this study is, therefore, to explore the different outcomes of identical and compatible recipient and donor blood group matching to determine whether identical matching is superior (LTx).

Method

Between January 1990 to June 2016, 297 patients underwent primary LTx, 10 patients underwent heart and lung transplantation (HLTx), and 18 patients required re-transplantation (Re-LTx) at Skåne University Hospital in Lund. With a total of 325 transplantations at our center, 262 were ABO-identically matched while 53 were ABO-compatible. For survival analyses, the end-point used was retransplantation-free survival in addition to excluding HLTx (n = 10), assessed by Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier.

Results

ABO-compatible patients had a median of 49 days (2–641), and ABO-identical patients had a median of 89 days (1–1717) (p = 0.048) on the transplant waiting list. Patients with a limited survival up to 1-year showed significant difference in survival rate for ABO-compatible recipients compared to ABO-identical recipients (p < 0.05), however no significant difference was shown in overall survival between the two groups (p > 0.05), with the same pattern shown in patients with a limited survival rate up to ten years, emphysema-patients, when excluding single-LTx and patients transplanted before 2005 and after 2005, respectively (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Recipients who received ABO-compatible matched grafts showed a similar survival rate to recipients who received ABO-identical matched grafts in the present study. Cytolomegalovirus and Ebstein Barr Virus mismatch were also identified as risk factors particular among emphysema patients. Since ABO-identical transplantations and ABO-compatible transplantations showed similar results, the present selection-bias of preferring ABO-identical lungs could be adjusted to increase organ allocation. It might also be possible to shorten recipient waiting list time, as an identical match showed over 80% higher time on the waiting list than a compatible, non-identical match.

Keywords

Lung transplantation Survival Patient outcome ABO-blood group 

Abbreviations

6MWT

6-min walking test

AAT1

Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency

ALT

Alanine transaminase

AST

Aspartate transaminase

ATG

Anti-thymocyte globulin

BMI

Body-mass index

CF

Cystic fibrosis

CLAD

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction

CMV

Cytomegalovirus

COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DLTx

Double-lung transplantation

EBV

Epstein-barr virus

ECMO

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

FEV1

Forced volume expiratory capacity 1 s

FVC

Forced volume vital capacity

GVHD

Graft-vs-host disease

HLTx

Heart-lung transplantation

HTx

Heart transplantation

LTx

Lung transplantation

PF

Pulmonary fibrosis

PGD

Primary graft dysfunction

PH

Pulmonary hypertension

Re-LTx

Re-lung transplantation

SLTx

Single-lung transplantation

Introduction

ABO-identical matching has long been preferred over minor ABO-mismatching (i.e. compatible but non-identical) in transplantation [1, 2] because it was believed to decrease the risk of organ rejection [3, 4, 5]. ABO-identical matching has been shown to prevent recipient erythrocyte destruction by the lymphocytes found in the donor organ, ultimately leading to hemolysis and organ failure such as in the kidneys [6]. Matching age, height, and size are established requirements in an organ allocation program to ensure a successful transplantation and optimal post-operative survival [7, 8, 9, 10]. Other donor and recipient factors include gender, Cytologmegalovirus (CMV), Ebstein Barr Virus (EBV) and toxoplasma-serology, smoking status, HLA-status, and screening through bronchoscopy and chest X-ray. Studies investigating recipient-donor mismatching of these factors have yielded conflicting results regarding their impact on patients’ long-term survival. Matching these parameters might, therefore, unnecessarily restrict the number of lung transplantations (LTx) that can be performed from an already scarce donor pool [11]. Earlier studies have recommended ABO-matching, but the long-term benefits are unclear, including whether it improves survival.

The relationship between age and identical ABO-matching might also be important. It has been shown in heart transplantation (HTx), for instance, that younger patients have a reduced risk for postoperative infections and a higher risk for organ rejection compared to elderly patients [12]. It has been suggested that this relationship is explained by immunological factors that change with age. There is, however, still no consensus whether recipient age and ABO-matching interact in LTx. This retrospective cohort study aims to better understand the effect of ABO-identical vs. ABO-compatible matching on survival in LTx and to explore additional risk factors.

Patients and methods

Data source

Between January 1990 and June 2016, 307 patients underwent LTx at Skåne University Hospital in Lund. Out of these, 197 were double-lung transplanted (DLTx), 100 were single-lung transplanted (SLTx), and 10 patients underwent heart- and lung transplantation (HLTx). The median age for these patients was 52 years with a range of 12–72 years. In terms of gender, 145 were males and 162 females. The major indications for a LTx or HLTx were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 74), cystic fibrosis (CF) (n = 59), α1-antitrypsin deficiency (AAT1) (n = 59), pulmonary fibrosis (PF) (n = 43), pulmonary hypertension (PH) (n = 39), and a group deemed as “Others” (n = 33), which included bronchiectasis, sarcoidosis, bronchioalveolary cancer, silicosis, and graft-vs-host disease (GVHD).

In addition, 18 patients required re-lung transplantation (Re-LTx). Out of these, 8 were DLTx and 10 SLTx. In terms of gender, 12 were male and 6 female. The major indications for Re-LTx were defined as chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) (n = 15), primary graft dysfunction (PGD) (n = 1), malignancy (n = 1), and mechanical complication (n = 1).

With a total of 325 transplantations (LTx, HLTx, Re-LTx), 262 were ABO-identical while 53 were ABO-compatible. In total, 10 patients had missing data regarding ABO-blood groups.

ABO-compatibly matched LTx groups consisted both of group O donors matching for A, B, AB recipients as well as group A, B donors matching for AB recipients. Examples of situations where an ABO compatible donor was used instead of an ABO identical matching were often due to the scarcity in donors and the individual assessment of each recipient that the risk of waiting additionally for a LTx on the waiting-list would be to great.

Statistical methods

Data are presented as mean with standard deviation (SD), median with range, or frequency with percentage. Shapiro-Wilks test was used to determine which variables were normally distributed/parametric (mean, SD) vs. non-normally distributed/non-parametric (median, range). Independent (unpaired) student’s t-test was conducted for normally distributed continuous variables while Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon rank sum) test was used for non-normally distributed continuous data. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were chosen for analysis of categorical variables. For survival analysis, the end-point used was retransplantation-free survival in addition to excluding HLTx. Cox regression estimates in accordance with Cox proportional hazards model was performed for univariable survival analysis. Survival estimates were displayed in accordance with Kaplan-Meier with Log-rank test to detect significance between survival curves. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Recipient and donor characteristics

Distribution in time for ABO-identical and ABO-compatible transplants between January 1990 and June 2016 are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Temporal distribution of all LTx at our single-center stratified into ABO-identical (N = 262) and ABO-compatible (N = 53) transplants between January 1990 to June 2016. Absolute numbers illustrated (bars)

Baseline and clinical characteristics of both recipients and donors are shown in Table 1. A statistically significant difference was found in waiting-list time between ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx with 49.0 (2.0–641.0) days and 89.0 (1.0–1717.0) days, respectively (p = 0.048).
Table 1

Recipient/donor baseline and clinical characteristics of ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx

Variables

ABO-compatible (n = 53)

ABO-identical (n = 262)

p-value

Recipient data

   

Recipients major indication

  

0.240

 COPD

10 (18.9%)

64 (24.4%)

 

 AAT1

9 (17.0%)

49 (18.7%)

 

 PH

7 (13.2%)

29 (11.1%)

 

 CF

15 (28.3%)

43 (16.4%)

 

 PF

9 (17.0%)

35 (13.4%)

 

 Others

2 (3.8%)

25 (9.5%)

 

 Graft failure (Re-LTx)

1 (1.8%)

17 (6.5%)

 

 CMV serology (pos)

39 (73.6%)

205 (78.2%)

0. 573

 EBV serology (pos)

37 (69.8%)

184 (70.2%)

0. 920

 Toxoplasma serology (pos)

14 (26.4%)

62 (23.7%)

0. 680

 CMV-mismatch

8 (15.1%)

41 (15.6%)

0. 911

 EBV-mismatch

5 (9.4%)

17 (6.5%)

0. 448

 Toxoplasma mismatch

6 (11.3%)

31 (11.8%)

0. 916

 Weight (kg)

64. 3 ± 19. 9

59. 8 ± 12. 5

0. 032

 Recipient/Donor weight ratio

0. 9 (0. 4–3. 1)

0. 8 (0. 4–1. 6)

0. 034

 Height (cm)

169. 1 ± 9. 1

168. 6 ± 10. 4

0. 703

 Recipient/Donor height ratio

1. 0 (0. 9–2. 4)

0. 9 (0. 8–1. 1)

0. 692

 BMI

22. 2 ± 4. 2

20. 9 ± 3. 7

0. 045

 Male

28 (52.8%)

124 (47.3%)

0. 465

 Gender mismatch

16 (30.2%)

90 (34.4%)

0. 523

 Age (years)

45. 5 (12. 2–70. 6)

52. 9 (12. 4–72. 0)

0. 159

 Recipient/Donor age ratio

0. 97 (0. 30–3. 92)

1. 03 (0. 27–3. 99)

0. 102

 Waiting list (days)

49.0 (2. 0–641. 0)

89. 0 (1. 0–1717. 0)

0. 048

Lab values

   

 FVC (liters)

2. 0 (0. 7–5. 2)

2. 1 (0. 3–5. 3)

0. 233

 FEV1 (liters)

0. 9 (0. 2–2. 6)

0. 8 (0. 2–3. 4)

0. 735

 6MWT (%)

39. 4 ± 20. 3

38. 6 ± 19. 4

0. 813

 P-ALT (μkat/L)

0. 4 (0. 1–9. 7)

0. 4 (0. 1–1. 6)

0. 128

 P-AST (μkat/L)

0.5 (0. 2–10. 0)

0. 4 (0. 2–2. 3)

0. 340

 P-creatinine (μmol/L)

66 (22–234)

62 (26–217)

0. 255

 Pulm. pressure > 25mmhg

20 (37.8%)

70 (26.7%)

0. 110

Tx-type

  

0. 121

 SLTx

14 (26.5%)

86 (32.8%)

 

 DLTx

36 (67.9%)

157 (59.9%)

 

 HLTx

2 (3.8%)

2 (0.8%)

 

 Re-LTx

1 (1.8%)

17 (6.5%)

 

 SLTx

1 (100%)

9 (52.9%)

 

 DLTx

0 (0%)

8 (47.1%)

 

 ATG

35 (66.0%)

172 (65.6%)

0. 908

Pre-op Life support

   

 Mechanical ventilation

2 (3.8%)

12 (4.6%)

0. 795

 ECMO

3 (5.7%)

9 (3.4%)

0. 673

Donor data

   

 CMV serology (pos)

32 (60.4%)

172 (65.6%)

0. 547

 EBV serology (pos)

22 (41.5%)

139 (53.1%)

0. 119

 Toxoplasma serology (pos)

8 (15.1%)

48 (18.3%)

0. 568

 Weight (kg)

70 (19–180)

71 (40–105)

0. 901

 Height (cm)

170 (70–198)

170 (150–190)

0. 886

 BMI

23. 9 (6. 2–34. 6)

23. 9 (14. 7–35. 9)

0. 999

 Male

27 (50.9%)

119 (45.4%)

0. 506

 Age (years)

50. 5 (12. 2–71. 4)

47. 0 (7. 8–75. 4)

0. 463

Data are mean (SD), number (%), or median (range). The numbers are based on patients with data available

Entries are bold due to being under 0.05 which are significant results

COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, AAT1 Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency, PH pulmonary hypertension, CF cystic fibrosis; PF, pulmonary fibrosis, CMV cytomegalovirus; EBV Epstein-barr virus; BMI, body-mass index, FVC forced volume vital capacity, FEV1 forced volume expiratory capacity 1 s, 6MWT 6-min walking test, AST aspartate transaminase; ALT alanine transaminase, SLTx, single-lung transplantation, DLTx double-lung transplantation, HLTx heart-lung transplantation, Re-LTx re-lungtransplantation, ATG anti-thymocyte globulin, ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

No differences between recipient characteristics such as pulmonary function (FVC, FEV1, 6MWT), liver/kidney-status (AST, ALT, creatinine), and pre-operative life support (ECMO or mechanical ventilation) were shown (p > 0.05).

Among donor characteristics, no significant differences was found between ABO-identical and ABO-compatible LTx (p > 0.05).

Mortality

Cause of death during follow-up stratified between ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx is illustrated in Table 2. No difference was found in cause of death (rejection, infection, malignancy, or “miscellaneous”) between ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx (p = 0.795). No statistical significant difference found in cause of death grouped by donor blood group (p = 0.902).
Table 2

Cause of death after ABO-compatible and ABO-identical transplants in addition to donor blood group

    

Donor blood group

 

ABO-compatible n = 28 (%)

ABO- identical n = 123 (%)

p-value

A n = 51 (%)

B n = 17 (%)

AB n = 1 (%)

O n = 82 (%)

p-value

Cause of death

        
   

0. 795

    

0. 902

Rejection

6 (21)

34 (27)

 

12 (24)

4 (24)

1 (100)

23 (28)

 

Infection

9 (32)

29 (24)

 

13 (25)

5 (29)

0 (0)

20 (24)

 

Malignancy

4 (15)

18 (15)

 

9 (18)

3 (18)

0 (0)

10 (13)

 

Miscellaneous

9 (32)

42 (34)

 

17 (33)

5 (29)

0 (0)

29 (35)

 

The group called ‘miscellaneous’ is defined as patients with mortality caused by myocardial and cerebral ischaemia, and multiple organ failure such as renal and liver in addition to other causes related to the patient’s old age and individual health status

Survival estimates

Between ABO-identical vs. ABO-compatible LTx for the entire cohort (excluding HLTx) in addition to excluding SLTx, cumulative survival rate estimates at 1-, 5, 10, 15-, and 20-years are illustrated in terms of percentage with an upper/lower 95% confidence interval (CI) (Fig. 2). For the entire cohort between 1990 and 2016 excluding HLTx, ABO-identical matches showed 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival rates of 91% (CI 87–95), 64% (CI 58–70), 44% (CI 36–51), 30% (CI 23–38), and 16% (CI 7–25), respectively, compared to patients with ABO-compatible matching at 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival rates of 73% (CI 60–86), 53% (CI 39–68), 40% (CI 24–56), 36% (CI 20–51), and 30% (CI 13–47), respectively (p = 0.290). In addition to excluding patients that underwent SLTx, no significant difference was found (p = 0.635).
Fig. 2

Cumulative retransplantation-free survival for ABO-compatible (N = 49) and ABO-identical (N = 242) transplants between 1990 and 2016 for the entire cohort excluding heart-lung transplantations (left figure) in addition to ABO-compatible (N = 35) and ABO-identical (N = 157) LTx when excluding patients that underwent single-lung transplantation (right figure)

Patients that underwent LTx between the periods 1990–2005 and 2006–2016 are shown in Fig. 3. No significant difference in survival was found between ABO-identical and compatible LTx in either time-period (p > 0.05).
Fig. 3

Cumulative retransplantation-free survival for ABO-compatible (N = 23) and ABO-identical (N = 113) transplants for the period 1990-2005 (left figure) and ABO-compatible (N = 26) and ABO-identical (N = 129) transplants for the period 2006-2016 (right figure). No significant difference in survival was observed between the two groups in either of the time periods

Cumulative survival estimates for patients with a limited survival up to 1- and 10-years in addition to overall survival for emphysema (COPD+AAT1) patients are illustrated in Fig. 4. Survival rates for recipients with ABO-identical LTx limited up to one year were 95% at 100 days (CI 92–98), 93% at 200 days (CI 90–96), and 91% at 300 days (CI 88–95) compared with recipients with ABO-compatible LTx with 100-, 200-, and 300-day survival rates of 88% (CI 79–97), 86% (CI 76–96), and 84% (CI 73–94), respectively (p = 0.001). Regarding patients with a limited survival up to ten-years and overall survival for emphysema patients, no significant difference was found (p > 0.05).
Fig. 4

Cumulative retransplantation-free survival for ABO-compatible (N = 49) and ABO-identical (N = 242) LTx for patients with a limited survival up to 1-year (upper left figure), ABO-compatible (N = 49) and ABO-identical LTx (N = 242) up to ten years (upper right figure) and overall survival for ABO-compatible (N = 19) and ABO-identical (N = 112) LTx in emphysema-patients between 1990 and 2016 (bottom left figure). A significant difference in survival was observed between compatible versus identical matching in patients with limited survival up to 1-year

Cox regression

The Cox proportional hazards model (univariable) evaluating ABO-identical vs. ABO-compatible LTx in addition to other risk factors for survival is shown in Table 3. In terms of identical ABO-matching (including interaction of age), gender mismatch, and waiting-list time, no significant difference was found (p > 0.05).
Table 3

Cox regression analysis for identical versus compatible ABO-matching, recipient/donor-blood group and other risk factors for retransplantation-free survival (univariable)

 

HR

95% CI

p-value

Identical ABO-match

0. 803

0. 534–1. 207

0. 291

Age

1. 020

1. 008–1. 033

0. 002

Identical ABO-match x age

1. 001

0. 993–1. 009

0. 788

Recipient > 55 years

1. 829

1. 346–2. 486

0. 001

BMI

1. 038

1. 001–1. 079

0. 050

Male

1. 148

0. 848–1. 556

0. 372

Gender mismatch

1. 130

0. 828–1. 544

0. 441

Waiting list

0. 999

0. 998–1. 000

0. 059

Infection

   

 Recipient CMV

1. 056

0. 718–1. 553

0. 783

 CMV-mismatch

1. 290

0. 823–1. 996

0. 253

 Recipient EBV

1. 134

0. 815–1. 578

0. 456

 EBV-mismatch

1. 655

0. 917–1. 058

2. 985

 Recipient toxoplasma

1. 147

0. 791–1. 664

0. 469

 Toxoplasma-mismatch

1. 074

0. 648–1. 781

0. 782

Blood-group (recipient)

   

 A

  

0.782

 B

1. 297

0. 790–2. 130

0. 304

 AB

1. 072

0. 567–2. 025

0. 830

 O

1. 084

0. 774–1. 517

0. 639

Blood-group (donor)

   

 A

  

0.484

 B

1. 290

0. 760–2. 188

0. 345

 AB

1. 169

0. 285–4. 794

0. 828

 O

1. 292

0. 926–1. 803

0. 131

Entries are bold due to being under 0.05 which are significant results

CMV cytomegalovirus, EBV Epstein-barr virus, BMI body-mass index, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio

Cox regression analyses regarding survival among emphysema-patients is shown in Table 4. Age had a HR of 1.044 (1.010–1.078) and recipients being 55 years or older with a HR of 2.115 (1.306–3.425) (p < 0.05). In terms of infection, CMV-mismatching had a HR of 2.588 (1.438–4- 659) and EBV-mismatching a HR of 3.556 (1.511–8.371) (p < 0.05).
Table 4

Cox regression analysis for identical versus compatible ABO-matching, recipient/donor-blood group and other risk factors for retransplantion-free survival among emphysema-patients (univariable)

 

HR

95% CI

p-value

Identical ABO-match

0. 600

0. 336–1. 069

0. 083

Age

1. 044

1. 010–1. 078

0. 010

Identical ABO-match x age

0. 995

0. 984–1. 005

0. 328

Recipient > 55 years

2. 115

1. 306–3. 425

0. 002

BMI

1. 035

0. 979–1. 094

0. 226

Male

0. 992

0. 632–1. 558

0. 973

Gender mismatch

0. 935

0. 600–1. 459

0. 935

Waiting list

0. 998

0. 997–1. 000

0. 009

Infection

   

 Recipient CMV

0. 659

0. 380–1. 144

0. 138

 CMV-mismatch

2. 588

1. 438–4- 659

0. 002

 Recipient EBV

1. 010

0. 634–1. 609

0. 965

 EBV-mismatch

3. 556

1. 511–8. 371

0. 004

 Recipient toxoplasma

1. 254

0. 784–2. 007

0. 345

 Toxoplasma-mismatch

1. 426

0. 649–3. 133

0. 377

Blood-group (recipient)

   

 A

  

0.565

 B

0. 950

0. 503–1. 797

0. 875

 AB

1. 793

0. 700–4. 595

0. 224

 O

0. 897

0. 548–1. 467

0. 665

Blood-group (donor)

   

 A

  

0.957

 B

0. 979

0. 490–1. 955

0. 953

 AB

1. 719

0. 233–12. 706

0. 596

 O

1. 044

0. 649–1. 677

0. 860

Entries are bold due to being under 0.05 which are significant results

CMV cytomegalovirus, EBV Epstein-barr virus, BMI body-mass index, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio

Discussion

Lung transplantation is the golden standard of medical intervention for terminally ill patients with end-stage pulmonary disease [13]. Despite the advancements over the years, LTx as a therapeutic intervention is still limited by the scarcity of organs. This significant shortage compels us to find more efficient ways of increasing and managing available donors [14]. In theory, to guarantee the best possible outcome in LTx, organ allocation programs recommend identical antigen-antibody matching between recipient and donor. The survival benefits of ABO-identical matching compared to ABO-compatible matching, however, has been questioned. For HTx patients, ABO-compatible matching shows a worse short-term outcome, but for LTx patients, ABO-compatible matching does not affect short-term survival (from 1 month to 1 year) [15, 16]. Several earlier studies have recommended ABO-matching according to the lung allocation guideline [17] and has been throughout the years been followed strictly by thoracic surgeons at several centers [1, 18]. However, whether there are any long-term benefits are still an issue under debate, including whether it affects long-term survival.

Our study showed no significant differences between ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx, in terms of long-term survival. Established risk factors such as gender, age, or height, Tx-type, major indication, and pre-op life support such as ECMO or mechanical ventilation were also evenly distributed in both groups. Use of pre-operative life support in LTx in addition to major indications such as COPD or PH has been shown to be strongly linked with mortality [8]. Among important clinical baselines such as renal, liver, and pulmonary function there were no differences demonstrated between the two groups. This suggests that the current organ allocation program is unbiased and consistent with optimizing best possible outcome despite ABO-matching. An interesting finding emerged when comparing waiting-list time between the two groups, where ABO-identical LTx had 80% longer waiting time than the ABO-compatible group. This suggests a potential to increase the volume of potential donors by accepting ABO-compatible matching, and thereby improving waiting-list survival. Recipients with blood group A, B and AB may hypothetically benefit significantly by including additional ABO-compatible LTx. In contrast, it is important to consider that in theory O-group recipients might be discriminated in such a condition since O-recipients may only accept O-lungs, with the possibility of being deprioritized when higher status is given to the remaining blood groups [19]. Further studies are needed to conclusively determine whether individual blood groups influence outcome in LTx.

Cause of mortality did not differ between ABO-identical and ABO-compatible groups. This is in accordance with Taghavi et al. [20] who found that post-operative outcome does not significantly differ between ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx. Earlier studies have reported the feared complication of passenger leucocyte syndrome among ABO-compatible LTx, resulting in the reaction of acute hemolysis between recipient erythrocytes and donor lymphocytes which could prove fatal after LTx [3, 6]. This could not be evaluated in this report, thus further investigation is required.

When stratifying recipients cause of death on donor blood group, no significant differences were found. This is in accordance with Bergenfeldt et al. [21] where no significant difference was shown between donor blood group and cause of death (such as graft failure, infection, malignancy, or miscellaneous). Blood group antigens are found among others on the glycoprotein von Willebrand factor, which varies in amount in accordance with type of ABO-blood group [22]. In general, higher levels are expressed among group AB in contrast to group O showing least amount of the glycoprotein. Von Willebrand factor has been shown to be associated with increased neutrophil activity and ischemia/reperfusion-injury, while liver-Tx has been linked with negative post-operative outcome [23, 24]. However, our study did not support such a premise. As no favorable clinical effect was shown between donor blood group or ABO-identical matching in our study, we can assume that the importance of these factors is limited.

To the authors knowledge, this single-center study has the longest patient follow-up regarding long-term survival comparing ABO-identical vs. ABO-compatible LTx. No survival benefit was found for ABO-identical LTx in the entire cohort, and when excluding SLTx. This is in accordance with Taghavi et al. [20]. The same pattern emerged when dividing our cohort into two different time periods, transplanted before or after 2005. In another model, we tested our null-hypothesis by comparing ABO-matching for emphysema patients. COPD and AAT1 tend to have a higher mortality as these recipients usually undergo SLTx and are often older patients with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases [25]. Even in this group, no benefit was found in ABO-identical matching. An incidental finding was made among emphysema-patients regarding CMV- and EBV-mismatching, as these patients had over 1.5 and 2.5 times higher risk for mortality. These analyses, however, were not adjusted for covariates that could affect survival. Emphysema-patients tend to have a higher age and more comorbidities that could negatively affect outcome.

Body Mass Index, age, and the age group “55 years or older” are known risk factors for mortality in LTx, and this was also found in the present study [15, 26]. On the other hand, no significant interaction between recipient age and identical ABO-matching was found. This suggests that ABO-compatible LTx stands as a promising option without significantly interfering with the outcome for recipients in higher age group. In HTx, however, it has been reported that transplantation outcome could be affected by this interaction as younger recipients tend to have lower frequency of infections and consequently higher frequency of rejections [12]. Further study is needed regarding this interaction in LTx.

This non-randomized retrospective cohort study has several unavoidable limitations [27]. Over the last decades, significant changes have been made in the area of transplantation. Different time-periods in LTx may have different survival outcome affected by factors such as surgical/anesthesia technique, management in the ICU, and introduction of new pharmaceuticals for immunosuppression and infection prevention. Some relevant variables were not obtained, which could influence the results for ABO-compatible LTx. For example, erythrocyte transfusions after transplant procedure and the occurrence of haemolytic anemia were not available. A main limitation in this study is the relatively small number of recipients and the discrepancy in size between the ABO-compatible and ABO-identical LTx groups. A larger dataset and equally large groups could give a more powerful analysis and limit the occurrence of type II errors.

Conclusions

This single center report has the longest follow-up regarding survival for ABO-compatible vs. ABO-identical matching in LTx and found no difference in long-term survival. In addition, CMV- and EBV-mismatch between recipient and donor for emphysema-patients affect survival negatively. This group, however, does often represent patients of a higher age group with comorbidities and often undergo SLTx, giving these recipients a particular disadvantage in terms of survival. We discovered no survival benefit for ABO-identical LTx in long-term survival. The same pattern followed in the sub analyses when comparing time-periods before and after 2005, excluding SLTx recipients, recipients with up to ten-year limited survival, and even among emphysema-patients. The group with identical matching had over 80% longer time on the waiting list than the group with compatible matching. We see a potential in the use of ABO-compatible LTx to optimize the allocation of donor organs and minimize recipient waiting time.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Lena Mared, Leif Eriksson, Jan-Otto Solem, and Professor Stig Steen. All co-workers at the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Pulmonary Medicine and Thoracic Intensive Care and Anesthesia, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Sweden.

Funding

The study was supported by the Skåne University Hospital foundation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to sensitive data based on patient journals from Skåne University Hospital, Lund University.

Authors’ contributions

MF conceived of the study, participated in its design, collected the patient data, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. HL participated in its design and analyzation of the data. MM participated in its design and analyzation of the data. LA participated in its design and helped to draw the manuscript. SL conceived of the study, participated in its design, collected the patient data, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the ethics committee in Lund, Lund University with reference number 2016/638.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Reyes KG, Mason DP, Thuita L, Nowicki ER, Murthy SC, Pettersson GB, et al. Guidelines for donor lung selection: time for revision? Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1756–64 discussion 1764-1755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kawut SM, Reyentovich A, Wilt JS, Anzeck R, Lederer DJ, O'Shea MK, et al. Outcomes of extended donor lung recipients after lung transplantation. Transplantation. 2005;79:310–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salerno CT, Burdine J, Perry EH, Kshettry VR, Hertz MI, Bolman RM 3rd. Donor-derived antibodies and hemolysis after ABO-compatible but nonidentical heart-lung and lung transplantation. Transplantation. 1998;65:261–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taaning E, Morling N, Mortensen SA, Pettersson G, Simonsen AC. Severe hemolysis caused by graft-derived anti-B production after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1996;15:850–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Magrin GT, Street AM, Williams TJ, Esmore D. Clinically significant anti-a derived from B lymphocytes after single lung transplantation. Transplantation. 1993;56:466–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt BJ, Yacoub M, Amin S, Devenish A, Contreras M. Induction of red blood cell destruction by graft-derived antibodies after minor ABO-mismatched heart and lung transplantation. Transplantation. 1988;46:246–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schiavon M, Falcoz P-E, Santelmo N, Massard G. Does the use of extended criteria donors influence early and long-term results of lung transplantation? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;14:183–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taghavi S, Jayarajan S, Komaroff E, Horai T, Brann S, Cordova F, et al. Double-lung transplantation can be safely performed using donors with heavy smoking history. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:1912–7 discussion 1917-1918.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Botha P, Trivedi D, Weir CJ, Searl CP, Corris PA, Dark JH, et al. Extended donor criteria in lung transplantation: impact on organ allocation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1154–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sundaresan S, Semenkovich J, Ochoa L, Richardson G, Trulock EP, Cooper JD, et al. Successful outcome of lung transplantation is not compromised by the use of marginal donor lungs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109:1075–9 discussion 1079-1080.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christie JD, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, Benden C, Dipchand AI, Dobbels F, et al. The registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: 29th adult lung and heart-lung transplant report-2012. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1073–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss ES, Nwakanma LU, Patel ND, Yuh DD. Outcomes in patients older than 60 years of age undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation: an analysis of the UNOS database. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008;27:184–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christie JD, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, Benden C, Dobbels F, Kirk R, et al. The registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: twenty-eighth adult lung and heart-lung transplant report--2011. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:1104–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christie JD, Kotloff RM, Pochettino A, Arcasoy SM, Rosengard BR, Landis JR, et al. Clinical risk factors for primary graft failure following lung transplantation. Chest. 2003;124:1232–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taghavi S, Jayarajan SN, Furuya Y, Komaroff E, Shiose A, Leotta E, et al. Examining ABO compatible donors in double lung transplants during the era of lung allocation score. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1167–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taghavi S, Jayarajan SN, Wilson LM, Komaroff E, Mangi AA. Cardiac transplantation with ABO-compatible donors has equivalent long-term survival. Surgery. 2013;154:274–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhorade SM, Vigneswaran W, McCabe MA, Garrity ER. Liberalization of donor criteria may expand the donor pool without adverse consequence in lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000;19:1199–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu NC, Haug MT 3rd, Khan SU, Goormastic M, Hague LK, Mehta AC, et al. Does the donor-recipient ABO blood group compatibility status predict subsequent lung transplantation outcomes? J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999;18:764–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Renlund DG, Taylor DO, Kfoury AG, Shaddy RS. New UNOS rules: historical background and implications for transplantation management. United network for organ sharing. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999;18:1065–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taghavi S, Jayarajan SN, Furuya Y, Komaroff E, Shiose A, Leotta E, et al. Single-lung transplantation with ABO-compatible donors results in excellent outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:822–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergenfeldt H, Hoglund P, Andersson B, Radegran G, Ohlsson M, Nilsson J. ABO-identical blood group matching has no survival benefit for AB heart transplant recipients. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:762–68.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O'Donnell J, Laffan MA. The relationship between ABO histo-blood group, factor VIII and von Willebrand factor. Transfus Med. 2001;11:343–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gandhi C, Motto DG, Jensen M, Lentz SR, Chauhan AK. ADAMTS13 deficiency exacerbates VWF-dependent acute myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in mice. Blood. 2012;120:5224–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang YI, Li G, Zhang Y, Gao W, Yao Z. The expression of von Willebrand factor, soluble thrombomodulin, and soluble p-selectin during orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2007;39:172–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fakhro M, Ingemansson R, Skog I, Algotsson L, Hansson L, Koul B, et al. 25-year follow-up after lung transplantation at Lund University Hospital in Sweden: superior results obtained for patients with cystic fibrosis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;23:65–73.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Perrot M, Waddell TK, Shargall Y, Pierre AF, Fadel E, Uy K, et al. Impact of donors aged 60 years or more on outcome after lung transplantation: results of an 11-year single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:525–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dickinson DM, Bryant PC, Williams MC, Levine GN, Li S, Welch JC, et al. Transplant data: sources, collection, and caveats. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(Suppl 9):13–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Cardiothoracic SurgeryLund University Hospital, Lund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Pulmonary MedicineUniversity Hospital, Lund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.OphthalmologyUniversity Hospital, Lund UniversityLundSweden
  4. 4.Thoracic Intensive Care and AnesthesiaSkåne University Hospital, Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations