Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
From JAMA |

Better Than the Lungs We Are Taking Out

Ashish S. Shah, MD
Arch Surg. 2011;146(6):645-646. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.123.
Text Size: A A A
Published online



Effect of a Lung Protective Strategy for Organ Donors on Eligibility and Availability of Lungs for Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Luciana Mascia, MD, PhD; Daniela Pasero, MD; Arthur S. Slutsky, MD; M. Jose Arguis, MD; Maurizio Berardino, MD; Salvatore Grasso, MD; Marina Munari, MD; Silvia Boifava, MD; Giuseppe Cornara, MD; Francesco Della Corte, MD; Nicoletta Vivaldi, MD; Paolo Malacarne, MD; Paolo Del Gaudio, MD; Sergio Livigni, MD; Elisabeth Zavala, MD; Claudia Filippini, PhD; Erica L. Martin, PhD; Pier Paolo Donadio, MD; Ilaria Mastromauro, MD; V. Marco Ranieri, MD

Context:   Many potential donor lungs deteriorate between the time of brain death and evaluation for transplantation suitability, possibly because of the ventilatory strategy used after brain death.

Objective:   To test whether a lung protective strategy increases the number of lungs available for transplantation.

Design, Setting, and Patients:   Multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with beating hearts who were potential organ donors conducted at 12 European intensive care units from September 2004 to May 2009 in the Protective Ventilatory Strategy in Potential Lung Donors Study.

Interventions:   Potential donors were randomized to the conventional ventilatory strategy (with tidal volumes of 10-12 mL/kg of predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of 3-5 cm H2O, apnea tests performed by disconnecting the ventilator, and open circuit for airway suction) or the protective ventilatory strategy (with tidal volumes of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight, PEEP of 8-10 cm H2O, apnea tests performed by using continuous positive airway pressure, and closed circuit for airway suction).

Main Outcome Measures:   The number of organ donors meeting eligibility criteria for harvesting, number of lungs harvested, and 6-month survival of lung transplant recipients.

Results:   The trial was stopped after enrolling 118 patients (59 in the conventional ventilatory strategy and 59 in the protective ventilatory strategy) because of termination of funding. The number of patients who met lung donor eligibility criteria after the 6-hour observation period was 32 (54%) in the conventional strategy vs 56 (95%) in the protective strategy (difference of 41% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 26.5% to 54.8%]; P> < .001). The number of patients in whom lungs were harvested was 16 (27%) in the conventional strategy vs 32 (54%) in the protective strategy (difference of 27% [95% CI, 10.0% to 44.5%]; P = .004). Six-month survival rates did not differ between recipients who received lungs from donors ventilated with the conventional strategy compared with the protective strategy (11/16 [69%] vs 24/32 [75%], respectively; difference of 6% [95% CI, −22% to 32%]).

Conclusion:   Use of a lung protective strategy in potential organ donors with brain death increased the number of eligible and harvested lungs compared with a conventional strategy.

Trial Registration:   clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00260676


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.