Next Article in Journal
Gene-Based Predictive Modelling for Enhanced Detection of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Using CNN-Based DL Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Localized, Contextual, and Hierarchical Features in Deep Learning for Improved Skin Lesion Classification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Speckle Tracking Echocardiography for Evaluating Ventricular Function after Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/diagnostics14131340
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Pre-Transplant Left Ventricular Diastolic Pressure on Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation: A Narrative Review

by
Jean Philippe Henry
1,*,
François Carlier
2,
Julien Higny
1,
Martin Benoit
1,
Olivier Xhaët
1,
Dominique Blommaert
1,
Alin-Mihail Telbis
1,
Benoit Robaye
1,
Laurence Gabriel
1,
Antoine Guedes
1,
Isabelle Michaux
3,
Fabian Demeure
1,† and
Maria-Luiza Luchian
1,†
1
Department of Cardiology, Université Catholique de Louvain, CHU UCL Namur, 5530 Yvoir, Belgium
2
Department of Pneumology, Université Catholique de Louvain, CHU UCL Namur, 5530 Yvoir, Belgium
3
Department of Intensive Care, Université Catholique de Louvain, CHU UCL Namur, 5530 Yvoir, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(13), 1340; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131340
Submission received: 29 May 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 21 June 2024 / Published: 24 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Echocardiography: Paving the Way for Precision Cardiovascular Diagnostics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Lung transplantation (LT) constitutes the last therapeutic option for selected patients with end-stage respiratory disease. Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a form of severe lung injury, occurring in the first 72 h following LT and constitutes the most common cause of early death after LT. The presence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been reported to favor PGD development, with a negative impact on patients’ outcomes while complicating medical management. Although several studies have suggested a potential association between pre-LT left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) and PGD occurrence, the underlying mechanisms of such an association remain elusive. Importantly, the heterogeneity of the study protocols and the various inclusion criteria used to define the diastolic dysfunction in those patients prevents solid conclusions from being drawn. In this review, we aim at summarizing PGD mechanisms, risk factors, and diagnostic criteria, with a further focus on the interplay between LVDD and PGD development. Finally, we explore the predictive value of several diastolic dysfunction diagnostic parameters to predict PGD occurrence and severity.

1. Introduction

Lung transplantation (LT) currently constitutes the ultimate standard therapy in highly selected patients with end-stage lung diseases (ESLDs). Although transplantation techniques, organ preservation, and medical management following LT have steadily improved during the past 30 years, primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains a frequent issue in LT recipients [1]. PGD constitutes a form of severe lung injury, occurring in the first 72 h after LT, which has been named ischemia-reperfusion injury, reperfusion edema, pulmonary reimplantation response, or early allograft dysfunction, underlying its intricate driving mechanisms. The pathogenesis of PGD is complex and the primary causative mechanism is consequent to ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI), resulting from direct damage of ischemia and preservation, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) at reperfusion, and activation of a damage-amplifying proinflammatory cascade [2].
Some studies suggest that graft reperfusion, rather than ischemia itself, may cause injury, further increasing the risk of PGD onset [2,3]. The activation and release of inflammatory mediators and signals from the donor lung can intensify post-transplant inflammation [2,3]. Nevertheless, these inflammatory signals do not always result in the clinical symptoms of PGD, as post-transplant outcomes depend on factors related to both the donor lung and the recipient [3]. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the recipient’s diastolic function may potentially influence the clinical progression of LT and PGD occurrence in certain patients. Additionally, previous reports indicated that donor characteristics can influence LT outcomes especially in the first 24 h, while recipient-related factors become more significant in the days following LT [3].
Currently, PGD is a clinical syndrome defined by hypoxemia and alveolar infiltrates on chest X-rays, which constitutes the most common cause of early mortality following LT [1,4,5]. Importantly, PGD also constitutes an important risk factor to develop chronic lung allograft dysfunction, which remains the first cause of death in LT recipients beyond the first year [6,7,8]. In LT candidates, a secondary enhancing causative mechanism of PGD has appeared. The presence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) recently emerged as an important risk factor for develo** PGD [4,9]. While pre-LT PH is usually due to respiratory status (group 3 PH) [10], the role of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in promoting PH (and eventually PGD) in LT candidates remains largely overlooked. LVDD is characterized by a decreased myocardial relaxation and increased left ventricle end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) [11] and is thought to also influence the clinical course following LT [12,13].
Currently, data exploring the mechanisms underlying the interplay between LVDD and PGD onset remain scarce. This review summarizes the current knowledge on this presumed association, while emphasizing the role of multimodality imaging in evaluating subclinical cardiac dysfunction in LT candidates.
An extensive literature review was conducted, recapitulating research studies involving exclusively human subjects, published in English, and indexed in MEDLINE (through PubMed). The research keywords included but were not limited to the following: lung transplantation, diastolic dysfunction, primary graft dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricle, mitral pattern, left atrial volume, E over e’, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction.

2. Primary Graft Dysfunction—Role of Pulmonary Hypertension

Since its emergence in the early 1980s, LT has steadily become the standard therapy for patients suffering from ESLDs, such as interstitial lung diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), cystic fibrosis, and other less common diseases. Although significant progress has been made over the past 30 years, both short- and long-term survival after LT remains low in comparison to other solid-organ transplants, with a 1-year mortality of 15% and a median survival of approximately 6.5 years [8].
PGD of a transplanted lung is the most common cause of early mortality, accounting for 20% of deaths occurring in the first 30 days after LT [1]. In the context of hypoxemia and ruling out alternative clinical causes, diffuse pulmonary opacities upon thoracic imaging characterize this potentially fatal LT complication [12].
By definition, it occurs within the first 72 h following transplantation and encompasses a range of lung damage, varying in intensity from mild to severe, determined by the level of hypoxemia and extent of lung injury [13].
Risk factors for develo** PGD that have been described range from donor characteristics and surgical protocols to factors related to the LT recipient (Table 1) [14]. The mechanisms underlying PGD are complex and incompletely understood. Ischemia and reperfusion in allografts initiate a cascade of interrelated cellular processes, leading to extensive damage to the vascular endothelium, alveolar epithelial cells death, and inflammatory cytokine/chemokine release [15,16]. This process, which is the primary causative mechanism, is further characterized by oxidative stress and innate immune system activation [15,16]. Consequently, pulmonary capillary permeability and pulmonary vascular resistance both increase, while gas exchange and pulmonary compliance decrease [16]. The exacerbation of these mechanisms significantly contributes to develo** chronic lung allograft dysfunction and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), considerably impeding functional outcomes [13,15]. In LT recipients, factors such as female gender, body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2, and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure (sPAP) have been linked to PGD onset and validated in prospective prediction models [17,18,19]. A meta-analysis, including 13 studies and encompassing over 10,000 LT recipients, highlighted the significance of primary LT candidate care assessments. It confirmed that pre-existing PH and elevated sPAP are closely linked to PGD incidence [9]. In line with these observations, a recent study including 158 consecutive LT patients proposed a cut-off of 37 mmHg for post-reperfusion sPAP as an independent PGD predictor [20], being superior to pre-reperfusion sPAP to predict PGD.
Nevertheless, reliance should not be placed only on specific mean pulmonary artery pressure thresholds when aiming at predicting PGD. Indeed, the broad spectrum of cardiac alterations linked to PH in LT recipients needs to be considered. Additionally, a range of factors related to right ventricle function (RVF) may also play a key role in the onset of PGD. While a certain degree of right ventricular dysfunction is typically regarded as normal in LT candidates, some exhibit a compensated or ‘pseudonormal’ RVF, often due to a hypertrophic right ventricle (RV), which is a frequent occurrence in PH patients [21].
RVF is a dynamic, rapidly evolving factor in the progression of LT. Kusunose et al. retrospectively assessed 89 patients, comparing RVF pre- and post-LT, and found notable decreases in RV areas (p = 0.033 and p < 0.001), sPAP (p < 0.001), and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (p < 0.001) following LT [22]. Improvements were also seen in the RV fractional area change (p < 0.001) and RV strain (p = 0.021) [22]. Additionally, a study including 72 LT patients observed that those showing enhanced RVF, as determined by speckle-tracking imaging, were more susceptible to develop severe PGD, due to increased pulmonary flow [21]. However, a limitation of this study was its inadequate examination of LVDD, which can both affect RVF and subsequently impact early postoperative outcomes [21]. These findings parallel the observations of Kusunose et al., who also described significant changes in RV parameters post-LT. The circulatory system being a closed loop, the interaction of both ventricles cannot be neglected. Alterations in one ventricle’s hemodynamic affects the other, and RV dysfunction has been shown to cause a diminution of the left ventricle (LV) performance, irrespectively of its mechanisms [23]. Therefore, both ventricles play a crucial role in the onset of PGD and should be considered in its management. However, the role of LVDD in PGD following LT remains largely overlooked, and research in the field started only a few years ago.

3. Primary Graft Dysfunction—Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction Current Guidelines’ Evaluation

LVDD is associated with a decreased myocardial relaxation and an increased LVEDP, elevating left atrial pressure (LAP) and causing pulmonary venous congestion. As per 2016 guidelines, diastolic dysfunction is identified by four echocardiographic variables: septal e’ < 7 cm/s, lateral e’ < 10 cm/s, average E/e’ ratio > 14, left atrium (LA) volume index > 34 mL/m2, and tricuspid regurgitation velocity > 2.8 m/s [24]. Two algorithms, based on normal or abnormal left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), utilize these variables. LVDD classification requires at least three of four variables to meet the criteria. Definite LVDD needs more than half of the parameters to meet the cut-off values, whereas 0–1 relates to normal left ventricle diastolic function. Reduced LVEF patients are presumed to have LVDD, graded as I, II, or III. Grade I (normal LAP) is E/A ≤ 0.8 (with E ≤ 50 cm/s) or E/A > 0.8 ≤ 2 (or ≤ 0.8 with E > 50 cm/s) with most variables not meeting cut-off values. Grade II (elevated LAP) is diagnosed if E/A > 0.8 ≤ 2 (or ≤ 0.8 with E > 50 cm/s) with ≥50% parameters meeting the cut-off values. Grade III (elevated LAP) is E/A ≥ 2 [24,25].
Various metrics measure LV pressure, including direct LVEDP and indirect LAP via pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). LVEDP > 15 mmHg indicates abnormal LV diastolic pressure elevation [26]. Studies reveal that more than 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), with more than 40% showing isolated LVDD [27]. HFpEF carries high mortality rates that are comparable to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [27,28]. As an example, patients with LVDD face higher surgical risks, including prolonged mechanical ventilation, HF exacerbation with increased hospitalization length, and postoperative mortality [29,30,31,32,33,34].
LT candidates may exhibit PH, defined by mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) exceeding 20mmHg [10], further linked to PGD [29]. PH elevates the RV afterload, leading to compensatory RV remodeling and bowing of the interventricular septum. This, in turn, affects LV filling due to ventricular interdependence, potentially causing LVDD [30]. Therefore, LT candidates with PH often display concomitant LVDD [31].
LVDD is highly prevalent in ESLD patients, ranging from 20% to 90% [35,36,37,38,39]. In addition, despite reduced systemic inflammation and RV volume overload subsequently to LT, some recipients may develop LVDD, worsening their vital prognosis [40,41].
LVDD is a precursor to HFpEF and remains often ignored, particularly in patients experiencing mixed dyspnea due to concomitant chronic respiratory and cardiac dysfunction [42]. In this regard, the accurate echocardiographic assessment of LVDD is crucial for informed medical decisions, particularly in candidates susceptible to develop PGD.

4. Primary Graft Dysfunction and Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction—Common Mechanisms

Although related to different organs, PGD and LVDD share common mechanisms centered around an imbalanced oxygen demand and supply, promoting IRI [43,44]. Chronic low-grade inflammation, observed in many conditions favoring HFpEF such as metabolic syndrome, COPD, atrial fibrillation, or anemia, constitutes one of the fundamentals of LVDD [45,46]. Cytokine release, prompted by immune reactions, prolonged cell hypoxemia, or the excessive activation of neuroendocrine and autonomic nerve function, may trigger myocardial apoptosis and diminish ventricular compliance [47,48,49]. These processes promote coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation, leading to the generation of reactive oxygen species and reducing nitric oxide bioavailability, as well as cyclic guanosine monophosphate contents and protein kinase G activity in adjacent cardiomyocytes. Ultimately, these factors favor hypertrophy and increase resting tension, reflecting some of the mechanisms observed in PGD [44,45,50,51]. Furthermore, the infiltration of neutrophils into the alveoli is a recognized pathological aspect of IRI in the transplanted lungs, potentially leading to an amplification of cytokine release [45,52]. Finally, proinflammatory cytokines involved in HF pathogenesis include TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, TGF-β, and IFN-γ, paralleling those associated with IRI in PGD [53,54].
Figure 1 shows these common mechanisms and the complex interplay of the recipient’s LVDD, PH, and RVF in the mechanism of PGD, via an inflammatory cascade, an innate immune system activation, and an increase in pulmonary capillary permeability and pulmonary vascular resistance.

5. Primary Graft Dysfunction—The Complex Interplay of Recipient’s Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction, Pulmonary Hypertension, and Right Ventricle Function

Although distinct and considered as a secondary enhancing causative mechanism of PGD, there are interplays of the recipient’s LVDD, PH, and RVF in the complex mechanism of PGD. PH due to left heart disease (group 2 PH) is a common complication of HFrEF and HFpEF [55], of which LVDD may be a precursor [42]. In group 2 PH, there is an increase in the LA pressure that causes a retrograde congestion in the pulmonary circulation, resulting in an increase in pulmonary venous pressure, PCWP, and pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) [56]. The pathophysiology is related not only to an increase in pulmonary arterial pressure but also to an increase in PVR due to adaptations in the vessel walls with hypertrophy and intimal hyperplasia [56]. This increase in PVR is mediated by an increased vascular tone and the remodeling of the pulmonary vasculature, both of which can be triggered by the imbalance between the secretion of vasoactive substances, like endothelin-1 (ET-1), and vasodilated substances, like nitric oxide (NO) and prostacyclin [56]. RV dysfunction in HFpEF is coupled with an elevated afterload, but is not simply due to an afterload -mismatch [57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. Indeed, a partially reversible element of pulmonary vasoconstriction is observed even in patients with an early stage of HFpEF, where a gross volume overload is absent [62].
The development of RV dysfunction, from normal to a compensated (hypertrophied) and then a decompensated state, follows the evolution of pulmonary vascular disease [64]. However, after lung implantation in LT, RV afterload is acutely reduced, which increases pulmonary blood flow and the shear stress on the formerly hypoxic pulmonary vascular endothelium. Shear stress leads to capillary leak and impairs graft function [65,66,67,68,69,70,71].

6. Primary Graft Dysfunction—State of the Art

Several studies have attempted to elucidate the role of LVDD in PGD following LT, as summarized in Table A1. First, Porteous et al. conducted a retrospective study on patients with interstitial lung disease, COPD, and PAH who underwent bilateral LT between 2004 and 2014 [12]. The diagnosis of PGD was established based on the classical definition, which entails a combination of a PaO2/FIO2 ratio below or equal to 200 and parenchymal infiltrates on a chest X-ray at 48–72 h after reperfusion [1]. After adjusting for recipient age, BMI, mPAP, and initial respiratory disease, an E/é ratio greater than 8 during pre-transplant check-up was retrospectively associated with a twofold increased PGD risk (OR, 5.29; 95% CI, 1.40–20.01; p = 0.01) [12]. Similarly, in a study by Li and colleagues, which included over 300 LT recipients, an elevated LVEDP and PCWP > 15 mmHg were separately associated with a fourfold increased risk of grade 3 PGD, whose reported prevalence was 19% [72]. In contrast, the E/e’ ratio did not significantly differ between LT recipients with and without PGD, possibly due to missing transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) data. Nevertheless, the authors advocated for a systematic assessment of LVEDP in in LT candidates to more accurately evaluate the risk of PGD, pleading for a multiparametric approach in patients at a higher risk.
Second, Avriel et al. [40] evaluated LVDD using a multiparametric yet partial diagnostic assessment by examining the E/A ratio, prolonged early mitral flow deceleration time, and isovolumic relaxation time in 44 LT candidates. The study demonstrated that the presence of pre-transplant LVDD was associated with increased early postoperative morbidity and decreased 1-year survival [40]. In the sub-group analysis, patients with pre-existing LVDD had a higher risk of extracorporeal life support post-LT (33% vs. 7%, p = 0.02) and a trend toward prolonged ventilator-free days [40]. Survival differences post-LT for normal vs. impaired diastolic function emerged in the initial months after LT, underscoring close follow-up with TTE assessment [39,40].
Due to continuous improvements in TTE algorithms, PGD evaluations lack current recommendations, creating gaps of evidence on the perioperative LVEDP impact on LT outcomes. Scattered and conflicting data on LVDD pathogenesis in non-PAH LT recipients contribute to inconsistent findings on its predictive value, stemming from different methods analyzing left ventricular filling pressure.
In contrast to Porteous’s study, a retrospective study led by Yadlapati et al. [73] found no correlation between increased E/A, E’/A’ ratios, PCWP, and post-LT events [73]. The limited TTE criteria (2009 guideline) may underestimate LVDD’s prognostic value, affecting medical management and outcomes. Indeed, in addition to the 2009 TTE criteria that included septal e’, lateral e’, and LA volume index [74], in 2016, a new parameter, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, was added for a better quantification of left ventricle filling pressures [24].
To address these limitations, Aggarwal et al. [25] recently explored the impact of LVDD, using the 2016 guidelines criteria in pre-transplant PH recipients [25]. Among 476 primary LT recipients, 205 (mean age of 56.6 +/− 11.9 years; men: 61.5%; mPAP, 30.5 +/− 9.8 mmHg; LVEF < 55% (4.3%)) were analyzed [25]. Pre-transplant, LVDD was present in 93 (45.4%), absent in 16 (7.8%), indeterminate in 89 (43.4%), whereas only 7 (3.4%) patients had missing data for LVDD evaluation.
Post-transplant, LVDD was present only in 7 LT recipients (3.4%), absent in 164 (80.0%), indeterminate in 15 (7.3%), and 19 (9.3%) had missing data. There was a significant decrease in post-transplant LVDD in those with pre-LT persistent LVDD [25]. Contrastingly, pre-transplant LVDD was not associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.72–1.62; p = 0.71) and BOS-free survival (HR 0.67, 74 95% CI 0.39–11.46; p = 0.34) at 1-year follow-up [25]. Additionally, a pre-transplant diagnosis of LVDD was not linked to grade 3 PGD [25].
In LT candidates with normal LV systolic function and PH, this study found a high prevalence of LVDD, which mostly resolved post-LT regardless of the patients’ characteristics. While these results may seem encouraging regarding LVDD’s impact on LT outcomes, caution is urged due to the study limitations, including its retrospective nature and a significant amount of missing TTE data.
Figure 2 shows the predictive value of different diastolic dysfunction variables in PGD development. Most of the variables were detailed in the studies cited above. The prognostic role of cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP or cardiac troponin I) in addition to new echocardiographic parameters designed for a better assessment of RV, right atrial (RA), and LA functions are insufficiently studied in this category of patients; therefore, their role in PGD development in LT candidates is incompletely understood.

7. PGD—Controversy and Unresolved Issues

In their studies, Li and Porteous both identified significant associations between various isolated LVDD parameters and PGD [12,72]. However, the LVDD criteria used by the authors differed between the studies. Unlike Porteous et al., who assessed LVDD by E/e’, Li et al. did not show the additional value of E/e’ in the PGD setting [12,72]. The existence of conflicting data underscores the significance of a multiparametric evaluation of LVDD. A common factor of the earlier reports on PGD risk evaluation was the presence of PH. PH increases RV afterload, causing compensatory RV remodeling, further inducing LV dysfunction, translated into high filling pressures in the context of preserved systolic function [40]. Consequently, the presence of LVDD (secondary to PH) might be a cofounding factor in this setting as some of the cardiac morphological and functional abnormalities secondary to PH tend to be resolved following LT [75,76]. ** new treatment algorithms, is mandatory for patients’ wellbeing. Advancements in cardiovascular imaging, such as 4D evaluation and deformation imaging employing strain and myocardial work analysis, hold the potential to enhance our comprehension of the mechanisms underlying PGD. These technologies aid in identifying subclinical dysfunction, providing a decisive impact on the future medical care of patients.

8. Conclusions

Primary graft dysfunction is the predominant cause of lung transplantation’s early mortality, yet the mechanisms of its onset remain inadequately understood. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, indicated by left ventricle end-diastolic pressure, may contribute to an elevated risk of primary graft dysfunction. However, discrepancies in the existing data underscore the importance of adopting a multiparametric approach, as recommended by the current clinical practice guidelines. Future research with standardized protocols is essential for a more precise understanding of left ventricle end-diastolic pressure’s prognostic value in post-lung transplantation outcomes and for refining clinical management strategies.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

This work was conducted without external funding. François CARLIER declares travel grants from Takeda, outside of the scope of the work. Jean Philippe HENRY, PhD candidate, received a grant from the “Fondation Mont-Godinne”. This grant was not used to support this paper. The other authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose in relation to the current article.

Appendix

Table A1. Main studies exploring LVDD in LT recipients.
Table A1. Main studies exploring LVDD in LT recipients.
AuthorsProspective/RetrospectiveGoal of the StudyPopulation ParticipantsLength of StudyMeasured Variables OutcomesMain Findings
Porteous et al. (2016) [12]RetrospectiveDetermine the association of LV diastolic function at lung transplant evaluation with the risk of postoperative PGDPatients who underwent bilateral lung transplantPGDNon-PGDLung transplant between June 2004 and June 2014E/A, DT, left atrial volume, E/e’, lateral e’ (echocardiography)Appearance of PGD at 48 to 72 h post-transplantE/e’ > 8: twofold increase risk of PGD.
N = 30
Mean age: 58.0 yr.
M: 66.7%		N = 87
Mean age: 56.5 yr.
M: 64.4%
Li et al. (2019) [72]Retrospective Determine the association of pre-transplant LVEDP and mPCWP with the risk of postoperative PGDPatients who underwent bilateral lung transplantPGDNon-PGDLung transplant between 2004 and June 2016LVEDP, PCWP (RHC)Appearance of grade 3 PGD at 48 to 72 h post-transplantmPCWP > 15: fourfold increased risk of PGD
N = 64
Mean age: 57 yr.
M: 69%		N = 266
Mean age: 57 yr.
M: 72%
Avriel et al. (2017) [40]Retrospective Compare the outcomes of double lung transplantation for patients with PAH with preoperative LVDD with the outcomes of patients without LVDD Patients with PH who underwent lung transplantLVDDNo LVDDLung transplant between 1995 and 2013IRT, E/A, DT (echocardiography)1-year survival post-LT, in-hospital mortality, use of ECLS, duration of mechanical ventilation, APACHE II score, intensive care unit LOS, hospital LOS, and development of PGD ↑IRT or ↓E/A or ↑DT: one-year survival lower and postoperative more complicated but no effect on PGD.
N = 14
Mean age: 43 yr.
M: 22% 		N = 30
Mean age: 45.4 yr.
M: 37%
Yadlapati et al. (2013) [73]RetrospectiveEvaluate the prognostic significance of preoperative markers of diastolic function Patients who underwent a bilateral or unilateral lung transplantLVDDNo LVDD Lung transplant between 2002 and 2009PCWP (RHC)

E/A, E’/A’ (echocardiography)		Post-transplant survival, post-transplant event↑mPCWP: no post-transplant event

↑E/A or ↑ E’/A’: no post-transplant event
N = 29
Mean age: 59.4 yr.
M: 66% 		N = 82
Mean age: 52.1 yr.
M: 52%
Aggarwal et al. (2023) [25]Retrospective Evaluate the impact of LVDD on LT outcomesPatients with PH who underwent single or bilateral LT LVDDLVDD indet *No LVDDLung transplant between 2011 and 2021E/e’, septal e’, lateral e’, TR velocity, LA volume index, E, E/A (echocardiography)Post-LT outcomes at 1 year (MACE, BOS-free survival, and mortality)Presence of LVDD in LT recipients with PH has no prognostic significance
N = 93
Mean age: 58.8 yr.
M: 60.2%		N = 89
Mean age: 56 yr.
M: 64% 		N = 16
Mean age: 47.4 yr.
M: 62.5%
BOS: Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome; DT: Deceleration Time; ECLS: Extra-Corporeal Life Support; Indet: Indeterminate; IRT: Isovolumic Relaxation Time; LA: Left Atrial; LOS: Length Of Stay; LT: Lung Transplantation; LV: Left Ventricle; LVDD: Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction; LVEDP: Left Ventricle End-Diastolic Pressure; M: Male; MACE: Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events; mPCWP: Mean Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PCWP: Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PAH: Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; PH: Pulmonary Hypertension; PGD: Primary Graft Dysfunction; RHC: Right Heart Catheterization; TR: Tricuspid Regurgitation; Yr: Years; * LVDD indeterminate: As per 2016 guidelines, diastolic dysfunction is identified by four echocardiographic variables: septal e’ < 7 cm/s, lateral e’ < 10 cm/s, average E/e’ ratio > 14, LA volume index > 34 mL/m2, and tricuspid regurgitation velocity > 2.8 m/s. Values that meet only half of these criteria (2/4) are defined as having indeterminate diastolic function.

References

  1. Snell, G.I.; Yusen, R.D.; Weill, D.; Strueber, M.; Garrity, E.; Reed, A.; Pelaez, A.; Whelan, T.P.; Perch, M.; Bag, R.; et al. Report of the ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction, part I: Definition and grading-A 2016 Consensus Group statement of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2017, 36, 1097–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Suzuki, Y.; Cantu, E.; Christie, J.D. Primary graft dysfunction. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 34, 305–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tao, J.; Sorokina, E.M.; Medina, J.P.V.; Mishra, M.K.; Yamada, Y.; Satalin, J.; Nieman, G.F.; Nellen, J.R.; Beduhn, B.; Cantu, E.; et al. Onset of Inflammation With Ischemia: Implications for Donor Lung Preservation and Transplant Survival. Am. J. Transplant. 2016, 16, 2598–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Diamond, J.M.; Lee, J.C.; Kawut, S.M.; Shah, R.J.; Localio, A.R.; Bellamy, S.L.; Lederer, D.J.; Cantu, E.; Kohl, B.A.; Lama, V.N.; et al. Clinical risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 187, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Diamond, J.M.; Arcasoy, S.; Kennedy, C.C.; Eberlein, M.; Singer, J.P.; Patterson, G.M.; Edelman, J.D.; Dhillon, G.; Pena, T.; Kawut, S.M.; et al. Report of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction, part II: Epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes—A 2016 Consensus Group statement of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2017, 36, 1104–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Verleden, G.M.; Glanville, A.R.; Lease, E.D.; Fisher, A.J.; Calabrese, F.; Corris, P.A.; Ensor, C.R.; Gottlieb, J.; Hachem, R.R.; Lama, V.; et al. Chronic lung allograft dysfunction: Definition, diagnostic criteria, and approaches to treatment-A consensus report from the Pulmonary Council of the ISHLT. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2019, 38, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Raskin, J.; Vanstapel, A.; Verbeken, E.K.; Beeckmans, H.; Vanaudenaerde, B.M.; Verleden, S.E.; Neyrinck, A.P.; Ceulemans, L.J.; Van Raemdonck, D.E.; Verleden, G.M.; et al. Mortality after lung transplantation: A single-centre cohort analysis. Transpl. Int. 2019, 33, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chambers, D.C.; Perch, M.; Zuckermann, A.; Cherikh, W.S.; Harhay, M.O.; Hayes, D., Jr.; Hsich, E.; Khush, K.K.; Potena, L.; Sadavarte, A.; et al. The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-eighth adult lung transplantation report—2021; Focus on recipient characteristics. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2021, 40, 1060–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Su, L.; Jiang, S.J. Recipient-related clinical risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Humbert, M.; Kovacs, G.; Hoeper, M.M.; Badagliacca, R.; Berger, R.M.F.; Brida, M.; Carlsen, J.; Coats, A.J.S.; Escribano-Subias, P.; Ferrari, P.; et al. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022, 43, 3618–3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jeong, E.M.; Dudley, S.C. Diastolic dysfunction. Circ. J. 2015, 79, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Porteous, M.K.; Ky, B.; Kirkpatrick, J.N.; Shinohara, R.; Diamond, J.M.; Shah, R.J.; Lee, J.C.; Christie, J.D.; Kawut, S.M. Diastolic Dysfunction Increases the Risk of Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplant. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 193, 1392–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yoon, J.; Salamanca-Padilla, Y. Effect of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on development of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplant. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2020, 33, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Van Slambrouck, J.; Van Raemdonck, D.; Vos, R.; Vanluyten, C.; Vanstapel, A.; Prisciandaro, E.; Willems, L.; Orlitová, M.; Kaes, J.; **, X.; et al. A Focused Review on Primary Graft Dysfunction after Clinical Lung Transplantation: A Multilevel Syndrome. Cells 2022, 11, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Laubach, V.E.; Sharma, A.K. Mechanisms of lung ischemia-reperfusion injury. Curr. Opin. Organ. Transplant. 2016, 21, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gelman, A.E.; Fisher, A.J.; Huang, H.J.; Baz, M.A.; Shaver, C.M.; Egan, T.M.; Mulligan, M.S. Report of the ISHLT Working Group on Primary Lung Graft Dysfunction Part III: Mechanisms: A 2016 Consensus Group Statement of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2017, 36, 1114–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kuntz, C.L.; Hadjiliadis, D.; Ahya, V.N.; Kotloff, R.M.; Pochettino, A.; Lewis, J.; Christie, J.D. Risk factors for early primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation: A registry study. Clin. Transplant. 2009, 23, 819–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Porteous, M.K.; Lee, J.C.; Lederer, D.J.; Palmer, S.M.; Cantu, E.; Shah, R.J.; Bellamy, S.L.; Lama, V.N.; Bhorade, S.M.; Crespo, M.M.; et al. Clinical Risk Factors and Prognostic Model for Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2017, 14, 1514–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Shah, R.J.; Diamond, J.M.; Cantu, E.; Flesch, J.; Lee, J.C.; Lederer, D.J.; Lama, V.N.; Orens, J.; Weinacker, A.; Wilkes, D.S.; et al. Objective Estimates Improve Risk Stratification for Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2015, 15, 2188–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cerier, E.; Manerikar, A.; Kandula, V.; Toyoda, T.; Thomae, B.; Yagi, Y.; Patino, D.M.A.; Lung, K.; Garza-Castillon, R.; Bharat, A.; et al. Postreperfusion Pulmonary Artery Pressure Indicates Primary Graft Dysfunction After Lung Transplant. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2024, 117, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pérez-Terán, P.; Roca, O.; Rodríguez-Palomares, J.; Ruiz-Rodríguez, J.C.; Zapatero, A.; Gea, J.; Serra, J.; Evangelista, A.; Masclans, J.R. Prospective validation of right ventricular role in primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation. Eur. Respir. J. 2016, 48, 1732–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kusunose, K.; Tsutsui, R.S.; Bhatt, K.; Budev, M.M.; Popović, Z.B.; Griffin, B.P.; Bolen, M.A. Prognostic Value of RV Function Before and After Lung Transplantation. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 2014, 7, 1084–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Comunale, G.; Peruzzo, P.; Castaldi, B.; Razzolini, R.; Di Salvo, G.; Padalino, M.A.; Susin, F.M. Understanding and recognition of the right ventricular function and dysfunction via a numerical study. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nagueh, S.F.; Smiseth, O.A.; Appleton, C.P.; Byrd, B.F., 3rd; Dokainish, H.; Edvardsen, T.; Flachskampf, F.A.; Gillebert, T.C.; Klein, A.L.; Lancellotti, P.; et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2016, 29, 277–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Aggarwal, R.; Potel, K.N.; Jackson, S.; Lemke, N.T.; Kelly, R.F.; Soule, M.; Diaz-Gutierrez, I.; Shumway, S.J.; Patil, J.; Hertz, M.; et al. Impact of lung transplantation on diastolic dysfunction in recipients with pretransplant pulmonary hypertension. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2023, 167, 1643–1653.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ponikowski, P.; Voors, A.A.; Anker, S.D.; Bueno, H.; Cleland, J.G.F.; Coats, A.J.S.; Falk, V.; González-Juanatey, J.R.; Harjola, V.P.; Jankowska, E.A.; et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2129–2200. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Bursi, F.; Weston, S.A.; Redfield, M.M.; Jacobsen, S.J.; Pakhomov, S.; Nkomo, V.T.; Meverden, R.A.; Roger, V.L. Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure in the Community. JAMA 2006, 296, 2209–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Owan, T.E.; Hodge, D.O.; Herges, R.M.; Jacobsen, S.J.; Roger, V.L.; Redfield, M.M. Trends in Prevalence and Outcome of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhou, Y.; Liu, L.; Cheng, T.; Wang, D.-X.; Yang, H.-Y.; Zhang, B.-W.; Yang, Y.; Chen, F.; Li, X.-Y. Grade 3 Echocardiographic Diastolic Dysfunction Is Associated With Increased Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events After Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Obstet. Anesthesia Dig. 2019, 129, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaw, R.; Hernandez, A.V.; Pasupuleti, V.; Deshpande, A.; Nagarajan, V.; Bueno, H.; Coleman, C.I.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Bhatt, D.L.; Blackstone, E.H. Effect of diastolic dysfunction on postoperative outcomes after cardiovascular surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2016, 152, 1142–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matyal, R.; Hess, P.E.; Subramaniam, B.; Mitchell, J.; Panzica, P.J.; Pomposelli, F.; Mahmood, F. Perioperative diastolic dysfunction during vascular surgery and its association with postoperative outcome. J. Vasc. Surg. 2009, 50, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cho, D.; Park, S.; Kim, M.; Kim, S.; Lim, H.; Shim, W. Presence of Preoperative Diastolic Dysfunction Predicts Postoperative Pulmonary Edema and Cardiovascular Complications in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. Echocardiography 2013, 31, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Fayad, A.; Ansari, M.T.; Yang, H.; Ruddy, T.; Wells, G.A. Perioperative Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery Is an Independent Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Events A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2016, 125, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Beaubien-Souligny, W.; Brand, F.Z.A.; Lenoir, M.; Amsallem, M.; Haddad, F.; Denault, A.Y. Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Transesophageal Echocardiography Before Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Clinical Implications of a Restrictive Profile. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesthesia 2019, 33, 2394–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Papadopoulos, C.E.; Pitsiou, G.; Karamitsos, T.D.; Karvounis, H.I.; Kontakiotis, T.; Giannakoulas, G.; Efthimiadis, G.K.; Argyropoulou, P.; Parharidis, G.E.; Bouros, D. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A tissue Doppler echocardiographic [corrected] study. Eur. Respir. J. 2008, 31, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. López-Sánchez, M.; Muñoz-Esquerre, M.; Huertas, D.; Gonzalez-Costello, J.; Ribas, J.; Manresa, F.; Dorca, J.; Santos, S. High Prevalence of Left Ventricle Diastolic Dysfunction in Severe COPD Associated with A Low Exercise Capacity: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boussuges, A.; Pinet, C.; Molenat, F.; Burnet, H.; Ambrosi, P.; Badier, M.; Sainty, J.-M.; Orehek, J. Left Atrial and Ventricular Filling in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2000, 162, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Funk, G.-C.; Lang, I.; Schenk, P.; Valipour, A.; Hartl, S.; Burghuber, O.C. Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients With COPD in the Presence and Absence of Elevated Pulmonary Arterial Pressure. Chest 2008, 133, 1354–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tonelli, A.R.; Plana, J.C.; Heresi, G.A.; Dweik, R.A. Prevalence and Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in Idiopathic and Heritable Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Chest 2012, 141, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Avriel, A.; Klement, A.H.; Johnson, S.R.; de Perrot, M.; Granton, J. Impact of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction on Lung Transplantation Outcome in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Am. J. Transplant. 2017, 17, 2705–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. **e, G.-Y.; Lin, C.S.; Preston, H.M.; Taylor, C.G.; Kearney, K.; Sapin, P.M.; Smith, M.D. Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function After Single Lung Transplantation in Patients With Severe Pulmonary Hypertension. Chest 1998, 114, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cherneva, Z.; Valev, D.; Youroukova, V.; Cherneva, R. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in non-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—A step forward in cardiovascular comorbidome. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barberà, J.A.; Peinado, V.I.; Santos, S. Pulmonary hypertension in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2003, 21, 892–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen-Yoshikawa, T.F. Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury in Lung Transplantation. Cells 2021, 10, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Paulus, W.J.; Tschöpe, C. A novel paradigm for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Comorbidities drive myocardial dysfunction and remodeling through coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 62, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Westermann, D.; Lindner, D.; Kasner, M.; Zietsch, C.; Savvatis, K.; Escher, F.; von Schlippenbach, J.; Skurk, C.; Steendijk, P.; Riad, A.; et al. Cardiac Inflammation Contributes to Changes in the Extracellular Matrix in Patients With Heart Failure and Normal Ejection Fraction. Circ. Heart Fail. 2011, 4, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cheng, J.M.; Akkerhuis, K.M.; Battes, L.C.; van Vark, L.C.; Hillege, H.L.; Paulus, W.J.; Boersma, E.; Kardys, I. Biomarkers of heart failure with normal ejection fraction: A systematic review. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2013, 15, 1350–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gevaert, A.B.; Shakeri, H.; Leloup, A.J.; Van Hove, C.E.; De Meyer, G.R.Y.; Vrints, C.J.; Lemmens, K.; Van Craenenbroeck, E.M. Endothelial Senescence Contributes to Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in an Aging Mouse Model. Circ. Heart Fail. 2017, 10, e003806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Negi, S.I.; Jeong, E.-M.; Shukrullah, I.; Veleder, E.; Jones, D.P.; Fan, T.-H.M.; Varadarajan, S.; Danilov, S.M.; Fukai, T.; Dudley, S.C. Renin-Angiotensin Activation and Oxidative Stress in Early Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 825027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, X.; Cao, H.; Li, J.; Wang, B.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, X.D.; Liu, Z.; Yuan, H.; Zhan, Z. Autophagy induced by DAMPs facilitates the inflammation response in lungs undergoing ischemia-reperfusion injury through promoting TRAF6 ubiquitination. Cell Death Differ. 2017, 24, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gielis, J.F.; Boulet, G.A.; Briedé, J.J.; Horemans, T.; Debergh, T.; Kussé, M.; Cos, P.; Van Schil, P.E. Longitudinal quantification of radical bursts during pulmonary ischaemia and reperfusion. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2015, 48, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Chiu, S.; Bharat, A. Role of monocytes and macrophages in regulating immune response following lung transplantation. Curr. Opin. Organ. Transplant. 2016, 21, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Chacon-Alberty, L.M.; Fernandez, R.; **dra, P.; King, M.B.; Rosas, I.; Hochman-Mendez, C.; Loor, G. Primary Graft Dysfunction in Lung Transplantation: A Review of Mechanisms and Future Applications. Transplantation 2023, 107, 1687–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mocan, M.; Hognogi, L.D.M.; Anton, F.P.; Chiorescu, R.M.; Goidescu, C.M.; Stoia, M.A.; Farcas, A.D. Biomarkers of Inflammation in Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction. Dis. Markers 2019, 2019, 7583690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Vachiéry, J.L.; Tedford, R.J.; Rosenkranz, S.; Palazzini, M.; Lang, I.; Guazzi, M.; Coghlan, G.; Chazova, I.; De Marco, T. Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2019, 53, 1801897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Breitling, S.; Ravindran, K.; Goldenberg, N.M.; Kuebler, W.M. The pathophysiology of pulmonary hypertension in left heart disease. Am. J. Physiol. Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2015, 309, L924–L941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Melenovsky, V.; Hwang, S.-J.; Lin, G.; Redfield, M.M.; Borlaug, B.A. Right heart dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 3452–3462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Mohammed, S.F.; Hussain, I.; AbouEzzeddine, O.F.; Takahama, H.; Kwon, S.H.; Forfia, P.; Roger, V.L.; Redfield, M.M. Right ventricular function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A community-based study. Circulation 2014, 130, 2310–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bosch, L.; Lam, C.S.P.; Gong, L.; Chan, S.P.; Sim, D.; Yeo, D.; Jaufeerally, F.; Leong, K.T.G.; Ong, H.Y.; Ng, T.P.; et al. Right ventricular dysfunction in left-sided heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2017, 19, 1664–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rommel, K.-P.; von Roeder, M.; Oberueck, C.; Latuscynski, K.; Besler, C.; Blazek, S.; Stiermaier, T.; Fengler, K.; Adams, V.; Sandri, M.; et al. Load-Independent Systolic and Diastolic Right Ventricular Function in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction as Assessed by Resting and Handgrip Exercise Pressure-Volume Loops. Circ. Heart Fail. 2018, 11, e004121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Redfield, M.M. Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1868–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Andersen, M.J.; Hwang, S.J.; Kane, G.C.; Melenovsky, V.; Olson, T.P.; Fetterly, K.; Borlaug, B.A. Enhanced pulmonary vasodilator reserve and abnormal right ventricular: Pulmonary artery coupling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ. Heart Fail. 2015, 8, 542–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Borlaug, B.A.; Kane, G.C.; Melenovsky, V.; Olson, T.P. Abnormal right ventricular-pulmonary artery coupling with exercise in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 3293–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Champion, H.C.; Michelakis, E.D.; Hassoun, P.M. Comprehensive invasive and noninvasive approach to the right ventricle-pulmonary circulation unit: State of the art and clinical and research implications. Circulation 2009, 120, 992–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Halldorsson, A.O.; Kronon, M.T.; Allen, B.S.; Rahman, S.; Wang, T. Lowering reperfusion pressure reduces the injury after pulmonary ischemia. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2000, 69, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pierre, A.F.; DeCampos, K.N.; Liu, M.; Edwards, V.; Cutz, E.; Slutsky, A.S.; Keshavjee, S.H. Rapid reperfusion causes stress failure in ischemic rat lungs. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1998, 116, 932–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hall, S.M.; Odom, N.; McGregor, C.G.A.; Haworth, S.G. Transient Ultrastructural Injury and Repair of Pulmonary Capillaries in Transplanted Rat Lung: Effect of Preservation and Reperfusion. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 1992, 7, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hidalgo, M.; Shah, K.; Fuller, B.; Green, C. Cold ischemia–induced damage to vascular endothelium results in permeability alterations in transplanted lungs. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1996, 112, 1027–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lu, Y.-T.; Hellewell, P.G.; Evans, T.W.; Zhang, Q.; Matsuzaki, I.; Chatterjee, S.; Fisher, A.B.; Ovechkin, A.V.; Lominadze, D.; Sedoris, K.C.; et al. Ischemia-reperfusion lung injury: Contribution of ischemia, neutrophils, and hydrostatic pressure. Am. J. Physiol. Cell. Mol. Physiol. 1997, 273, L46–L54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pickford, M.A.; Green, C.J.; Sarathchandra, P.; Fryer, P.R. Ultrastructural changes in rat lungs after 48 h cold storage with and without reperfusion. Int. J. Exp. Pathol. 1990, 71, 513–528. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mills, A.N.; Hooper, T.L.; Hall, S.M.; McGregor, C.G.; Haworth, S.G. Unilateral lung transplantation: Ultrastructural studies of ischemia-reperfusion injury and repair in the canine pulmonary vasculature. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 1992, 11, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Li, D.; Weinkauf, J.; Hirji, A.; Kapasi, A.; Lien, D.; Nagendran, J.; Kim, D.; Ezekowitz, J.; Halloran, K. Elevated pre-transplant left ventricular end-diastolic pressure increases primary graft dysfunction risk in double lung transplant recipients. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2019, 38, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Yadlapati, A.; Lynch, J.P.; Saggar, R.; Ross, D.; Belperio, J.A.; Weigt, S.; Ardehali, A.; Grogan, T.; Yang, E.H.; Aboulhosn, J. Preoperative Cardiac Variables of Diastolic Dysfunction and Clinical Outcomes in Lung Transplant Recipients. J. Transplant. 2013, 2013, 391620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Nagueh, S.F.; Appleton, C.P.; Gillebert, T.C.; Marino, P.N.; Oh, J.K.; Smiseth, O.A.; Waggoner, A.D.; Flachskampf, F.A.; Pellikka, P.A.; Evangelisa, A. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. Eur. J. Echocardiogr. 2009, 10, 165–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Toyooka, S.; Kusano, K.F.; Goto, K.; Masaomi, Y.; Oto, T.; Sano, Y.; Fuke, S.; Okazaki, M.; Ohe, T.; Kasahara, S.; et al. Right but not left ventricular function recovers early after living-donor lobar lung transplantation in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009, 138, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kasner, M.; Westermann, D.; Steendijk, P.; Gaub, R.; Wilkenshoff, U.; Weitmann, K.; Hoffmann, W.; Poller, W.; Schultheiss, H.P.; Pauschinger, M.; et al. Utility of Doppler echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging in the estimation of diastolic function in heart failure with normal ejection fraction: A comparative Doppler-conductance catheterization study. Circulation 2007, 116, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Sammour, Y.; Nassif, M.; Magwire, M.; Thomas, M.; Fendler, T.; Khumri, T.; Sperry, B.W.; O’Keefe, J.; Kosiborod, M. Effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in heart transplant patients with type 2 diabetes: Initial report from a cardiometabolic center of excellence. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2021, 40, 426–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sweiss, H.; Selznick, L.; Contreras, J.; Long, C.; Hall, R.; Bhayana, S.; Patel, R.; Klein, K. Safety and Efficacy of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. Prog. Transplant. 2023, 33, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fardman, A.; Kodesh, A.; Siegel, A.; Regev, E.; Berkovitch, A.; Morgan, A.; Grupper, A. (1043) SGLT2 Inhibitors are Associated with Improved Clinical and Hemodynamic Parameters in LVAD Patients. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2023, 42, S451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anker, S.D.; Usman, M.S.; Butler, J. SGLT2 Inhibitors: From Antihyperglycemic Agents to All-Around Heart Failure Therapy. Circulation 2022, 146, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 14 01340 g001
Figure 1. The common mechanisms of PGD and LVDD and the interplay of the recipient’s LVDD, PH and RVF in the mechanism of PGD. HFpEF: Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction; LVDD: Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction; LVEDP: Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure; RV: Right Ventricular; RVH: Right Ventricular Hypertrophy; * Mean pulmonary artery pressure > 20 mmHg, measured by right heart catheterization; ** Defined as a wall thickness greater than 5 mm.
Figure 1. The common mechanisms of PGD and LVDD and the interplay of the recipient’s LVDD, PH and RVF in the mechanism of PGD. HFpEF: Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction; LVDD: Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction; LVEDP: Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure; RV: Right Ventricular; RVH: Right Ventricular Hypertrophy; * Mean pulmonary artery pressure > 20 mmHg, measured by right heart catheterization; ** Defined as a wall thickness greater than 5 mm.
Diagnostics 14 01340 g001
Diagnostics 14 01340 g002
Figure 2. Predictive value of different diastolic dysfunction variables on PGD. Aggarwal et al.: [25]; Avriel et al.: [40]; DT: Deceleration Time; IRT: Isovolumic Relaxation Time; LA: Left Atrial; LVDD: Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction; Li et al.: [72]; mPCWP: Mean Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PACS: Peak Atrial Contraction Strain; PALS: Peak Atrial Longitudinal Strain; PAPs: Pulmonary Arterial Systolic pressure; PGD: Primary Graft Dysfunction; Porteous et al.: [12]; RA: Right Atrial; RV: Right Ventricle; 3D-RVEF: Three-Dimensional Echography Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction; RV FWLS: Right Ventricular Free Wall Longitudinal Strain; TAPSE: Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion; Yadlipadi et al.: [73].
Figure 2. Predictive value of different diastolic dysfunction variables on PGD. Aggarwal et al.: [25]; Avriel et al.: [40]; DT: Deceleration Time; IRT: Isovolumic Relaxation Time; LA: Left Atrial; LVDD: Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction; Li et al.: [72]; mPCWP: Mean Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PACS: Peak Atrial Contraction Strain; PALS: Peak Atrial Longitudinal Strain; PAPs: Pulmonary Arterial Systolic pressure; PGD: Primary Graft Dysfunction; Porteous et al.: [12]; RA: Right Atrial; RV: Right Ventricle; 3D-RVEF: Three-Dimensional Echography Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction; RV FWLS: Right Ventricular Free Wall Longitudinal Strain; TAPSE: Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion; Yadlipadi et al.: [73].
Diagnostics 14 01340 g002
Table 1. Risk factors for the development of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) following lung transplantation.
Table 1. Risk factors for the development of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) following lung transplantation.
CategoryRisk Factors [14,18,19]
Donor
-
Age (>45 years or <21 years);
-
American and African race;
-
Female sex;
-
Hemodynamic instability after brain death;
-
Prolonged mechanical ventilation;
-
Smoking history.
Recipient’s variables
-
Body mass index > 25;
-
Diagnosis: IPF, PAH, PH secondary to parenchymal lung disease, sarcoidosis;
-
Elevated pulmonary arterial pressure at time of surgery;
-
Female sex.
Operative variables
-
Single lung transplantation;
-
Prolonged ischemic time;
-
Use of cardiopulmonary bypass;
-
Packed red blood transfusion > 1 L;
-
High reperfusion FiO2 > 0.4.
IPF: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; PAH: Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; PH: Pulmonary Hypertension.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Henry, J.P.; Carlier, F.; Higny, J.; Benoit, M.; Xhaët, O.; Blommaert, D.; Telbis, A.-M.; Robaye, B.; Gabriel, L.; Guedes, A.; et al. Impact of Pre-Transplant Left Ventricular Diastolic Pressure on Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation: A Narrative Review. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131340

AMA Style

Henry JP, Carlier F, Higny J, Benoit M, Xhaët O, Blommaert D, Telbis A-M, Robaye B, Gabriel L, Guedes A, et al. Impact of Pre-Transplant Left Ventricular Diastolic Pressure on Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation: A Narrative Review. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(13):1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131340

Chicago/Turabian Style

Henry, Jean Philippe, François Carlier, Julien Higny, Martin Benoit, Olivier Xhaët, Dominique Blommaert, Alin-Mihail Telbis, Benoit Robaye, Laurence Gabriel, Antoine Guedes, and et al. 2024. "Impact of Pre-Transplant Left Ventricular Diastolic Pressure on Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation: A Narrative Review" Diagnostics 14, no. 13: 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131340

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop