Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Double lung transplantation is better than single lung transplantation for end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 19, Article number: 162 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lung transplantation is one of the most common treatment options for patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the choice between single and double lung transplantation for these patients remains a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a systematic search of medical databases for studies on single lung transplantation, double lung transplantation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Methods

The rate ratio and hazard ratio of survival were analyzed. The meta-analysis included 15 case–control and retrospective registry studies.

Results

The rate ratios of the 3-year survival (0.937 and P = 0.041) and 5-year survival (0.775 and P = 0.000) were lower for single lung transplantation than for double lung transplantation. However, the hazard ratio did not differ significantly between the two.

Conclusions

Double lung transplantation was found to provide better benefits than single lung transplantation in terms of the long-term survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Peer Review reports

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most common indication for lung transplantation worldwide 1. Currently, lung transplantation is the final treatment strategy for patients with end-stage COPD. The points in favor of single lung transplantation (SLT) and double lung transplantation (DLT) are equivocal. However, researchers of some case–control series have reported better outcomes in patients who underwent DLT than in those who underwent SLT [1]; in their experience, SLT leads to a high rate of primary graft dysfunction. Conversely, a large retrospective registry analysis revealed equal outcomes between SLT and DLT [2]. We reviewed relevant published literature and noted two different opinions regarding SLT and BLT: most studies have indicated that DLT is better for survival than SLT, but others have provided data indicating equal outcomes between the two.

Therefore, we reviewed the existing literature on the subject and performed a meta-analysis of all included studies to determine whether SLT or DLT yielded better survival outcomes.

Methods

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

We searched the PubMed, Medline, and Scopus databases using one or more of the following keywords: “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” and “single lung transplantation or double lung transplantation.” A total of 416 results were identified in the search. We excluded articles on animal studies; articles written in a language other than English; articles that were case reports, reviews, letters, and editorial comments; articles published before 2000; and articles on studies with less than 50 patients.

The primary inclusion criteria were that the study must compare two treatment arms, (i.e., SLT and DLT) and that all the included patients should have undergone lung transplantation for end-stage lung disease.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers read all the included literature critically and extracted the relevant data, including the first author, year of publication, number of treatment arms, and survival results. The quality of the included studies was assessed by all authors using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, which comprises three parts for a case–control study or cohort study: “SELECTION” (four items), “COMPARABILITY” (one item), and “EXPOSURE” (three items). Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved through discussions with the other authors, including the corresponding author.

Data synthesis and analysis

Patient survival was the primary outcome in this study. We used rate ratios to compare SLT and DLT. Some of the included studies used multiple variance analyses and presented data with hazard ratios; we also used these to compare SLT and DLT. A random effects model was used to pool individual rate ratios and hazard ratios. Heterogeneity was determined using I2 tests; I2 values of > 50% were considered indicative of obvious heterogeneity. Potential publication bias was determined using the Egger’s test and Funnel plots. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA).

Results

Study search and characteristics of the included patients

Overall, 416 records were identified through database searching. Two reviewers read the titles, abstracts, and keywords of these records, and selected 32 studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). These mostly comprised case–control studies and database analyses.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Full size image

Seventeen of these were further excluded for the following reasons: patients with COPD were not separated from all lung transplant recipients [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; survival data were not analyzed [11,12,13]; problems were noted with the statistical analyses, i.e., hazard ratios did not fit the 95% confidence intervals [14, 15]; SLT and DLT were not compared [16, 17]; a simulated model was used to compare the effects of SLT and DLT for COPD on waitlist outcomes, but long-term survival data were not reported [18]; and the OPTN/UNOS database was analyzed, but detailed survival data were not reported [19].

Finally, 15 studies remained for data analysis; most comprised retrospective case–control studies [1, 2, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Some of these were single-center, retrospective case–control studies [1, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29]; the others were database cohort analyses [2, 20, 22, 25,26,27, 30,31,32]. The data extracted from all the included studies are provided in Table 1. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to appraise all the studies; the results are provided in Table 2.

Table 1 Patient characteristics, study methodology, and quality assessment of included trial
Full size table
Table 2 The detail of quality assessment of the included studies
Full size table

Pooled rate ratio and hazard ratio of survival

We analyzed the survival rate and compared the same between the SLT and DLT groups in each study. We also included the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival data in the analysis. In some studies, results were obtained using multiple variance analyses and hazard ratios; we performed a separate analysis for these studies [2, 25, 27, 30].

The pooled rate ratios were 0.98 (P = 0.646; Fig. 2), 0.937 (P = 0.041; Fig. 3), and 0.775 (P = 0.000; Fig. 4) for the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival, respectively.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Rate ratio analysis of 1-year survival following double and single lung transplantation. CI, confidence interval; DLT, double lung transplantation; SLT, single lung transplantation

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Rate ratio analysis of 3-year survival following double and single lung transplantation. CI, confidence interval; DLT, double lung transplantation; SLT, single lung transplantation

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Rate ratio analysis of 5-year survival following double and single lung transplantation. CI, confidence interval; DLT, double lung transplantation; SLT, single lung transplantation

Full size image

The pooled hazard ratio of survival was 0.857 (P = 0.388; Fig. 5a). Thabut et al. analyzed the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation database and reported different data after propensity score matching [2]. We included their study, with two different results, in the analysis because the P values were not significant. The pooled hazard ratio was 0.956 (P = 0.755; Fig. 5b).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Hazard ratio analysis of double and single lung transplantation. a Without propensity score matching in the study by Thabut et al. b With propensity score matching. CI, confidence interval; DLT, double lung transplantation; SLT, single lung transplantation

Full size image

The Egger’s test did not reveal a significant publication bias in the following: 1) pooled rate ratio analyses of the 1-year (P = 0.154), 3-year (P = 0.097), and 5-year (P = 0.242) survival; 2) hazard ratio analysis (P = 0.711); and 3) hazard ratio analysis with Thabut et al.’s propensity score matching results (P = 0.188). The Funnel plots are presented in Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9a and b.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Funnel plot of all studies that included 1-year survival data

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Funnel plot of all studies that included 3-year survival data

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Funnel plot of all studies that included 5-year survival data

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Funnel plot of all studies included in the hazard ratio analysis. a Without propensity score matching in the study by Thabut et al. b With propensity score matching

Full size image

Discussion

Patients with end-stage COPD are often recommended to undergo lung transplantation, which is currently the most acceptable treatment method. However, the debate between SLT and DLT still exists [33]. Lung transplantation is a complex and difficult surgery, and procedure selection is known to affect patient survival [34].

Our analysis showed that the early survival outcomes were equal between SLT and DLT. However, DLT achieved a better mid-term and long-term survival than SLT. The pooled hazard ratio did not reveal a significant difference between the two.

Most of the case–control series revealed a better outcome for DLT [1, 21, 24, 28, 29]. However, analysis studies based on a large registry revealed equal outcomes for both methods [2, 30]. Besides, DLT could bring about an organ shortage and increase the risk of mortality in patients on the waiting list. This is the primary reason the current review did not recommend whether patients with end-stage COPD should receive SLT or DLT.

The retrospective database study by Thabut et al. is an important one; it majorly contributed to the present meta-analysis due to its large sample size. Thabut et al. used different statistical methods (including propensity score matching) in an attempt to reduce the effect of confounding factors. They achieved the same result with these methods. We chose to include their study because we thought that their data, obtained with multiple methods, would allow us to better compare SLT and DLT.

The choice between DLT and SLT remains debatable. Waiting list mortality is major concern during choosing the appropriate procedure. SLT can reduce the waiting times associated with organ shortage [29]. However, DLT has been proven to yield better survival and quality of life outcomes in some studies [1]. This conflict will affect the choice of procedure, especially when the patient’s age is taken into consideration. DLT could provide a better quality of life for larger lung volumes [1]. For younger recipients, this is an important factor to consider while discussing the treatment plans with the transplantation team.

Our study had several limitations. First, all the included studies were case–control studies or retrospective analyses of registry data. Thus, the evidence level was not high. Several additional factors affect patient survival, including the patient’s age, center where the surgery is conducted and the facilities available there, and the surgeon’s experience and expertise. Two of the included studies involved age-based analyses [2, 20]; however, the meta-analysis pooled their data and masked the effect of age.

Furthermore, we excluded studies published before 2000 because surgery techniques and critical care have undergone significant changes in the past 20 years. The aforementioned factors would have affected our results had we included studies published before 2000 in our meta-analysis. Accordingly, we further excluded case–control studies with less than 50 patients since such low-volume studies could also affect our results.

It is impossible to conduct a prospective randomized trial on this subject due to ethical considerations regarding patient treatment. However, a retrospective registry analysis across multiple countries and comparison of the obtained results may provide data beneficial for patients with end-stage COPD worldwide. The more retrospective studies published, the more data we can collect for a meta-analysis to determine the different factors related to the outcomes of the two transplantation procedures.

Conclusions

We determined that in patients with end-stage COPD, DLT results in a better 3-year and 5-year survival than SLT.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in PubMed, Medline, and Scopus.

Abbreviations

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DLT:

Double lung transplantation

SLT:

Single lung transplantation

References

  1. Pochettino A, Kotloff RM, Rosengard BR, Arcasoy SM, Blumenthal NP, Kaiser LR, et al. Bilateral versus single lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: intermediate-term results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70(6):1813–8; discussion 8-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thabut G, Christie JD, Ravaud P, Castier Y, Brugière O, Fournier M, et al. Survival after bilateral versus single lung transplantation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective analysis of registry data. Lancet (London, England). 2008;371(9614):744–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moffatt SD, Demers P, Robbins RC, Doyle R, Wienacker A, Henig N, et al. Lung transplantation: a decade of experience. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(2):145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thacker J, Toyoda Y. Lung and heart-lung transplantation at University of Pittsburgh: 1982–2009. Clinical transplants. 2009:179–95.

  5. Jesel L, Barraud J, Lim HS, Marzak H, Messas N, Hirschi S, et al. Early and late atrial arrhythmias after lung transplantation- incidence, predictive factors and impact on mortality. Circ J. 2017;81(5):660–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salamo O, Roghaee S, Schweitzer MD, Mantero A, Shafazand S, Campos M, et al. White donor, younger donor and double lung transplant are associated with better survival in sarcoidosis patients. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):6968.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuba B, Scheklinski M, von Dossow V, Schneider C, Preissler G, Kneidinger N, et al. Five-year experience using the lung allocation score: the munich lung transplant group. Eur J CardioThorac Surg. 2018;54(2):328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Raemdonck D, Keshavjee S, Levvey B, Cherikh WS, Snell G, Erasmus M, et al. Donation after circulatory death in lung transplantation-five-year follow-up from ISHLT Registry. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38(12):1235–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blitzer D, Copeland H, Roe D, Hage C, Wang IW, Duncan M, et al. Long term survival after lung transplantation: A single center experience. J Card Surg. 2020;35(2):273–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. AworiHayanga JW, Aboagye JK, Shigemura N, Hayanga HK, Murphy E, Khaghani A, et al. Airway complications after lung transplantation: Contemporary survival and outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35(10):1206–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Paradela M, González D, Parente I, Fernández R, De La Torre MM, Delgado M, et al. Surgical risk factors associated with lung transplantation. Transpl Proc. 2009;41(6):2218–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shadmehr MB, Arab M, Pejhan S, Daneshvar A, Javaherzadeh N, Abbasi A, et al. Eight years of lung transplantation: experience of the National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. Transpl Proc. 2009;41(7):2887–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Oto T, Griffiths AP, Levvey BJ, Pilcher DV, Williams TJ, Snell GI. Definitions of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation: differences between bilateral and single lung transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(1):140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Q, Rogers CA, Bonser RS, Banner NR, Demiris N, Sharples LD. Assessing the benefit of accepting a single lung offer now compared with waiting for a subsequent double lung offer. Transplantation. 2011;91(8):921–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson MR, Tabah A, RoyChoudhury A, Lederer DJ. Procedure preference and intention-to-treat outcomes after listing for lung transplantation among U.S. adults. A cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(2):231–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. de Perrot M, Chaparro C, McRae K, Waddell TK, Hadjiliadis D, Singer LG, et al. Twenty-year experience of lung transplantation at a single center: Influence of recipient diagnosis on long-term survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127(5):1493–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Latos M, Nęcki M, Pawlak D, Urlik M, Antończyk R, Ochman M, et al. Outcome of lung transplantation as a treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a single-center study. Transplant Proc. 2020;52(7):2118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Munson JC, Christie JD, Halpern SD. The societal impact of single versus bilateral lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(11):1282–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cai J. Double- and single-lung transplantation: an analysis of twenty years of OPTN/UNOS registry data. Clin Transpl. 2007:1–8.

  20. Meyer DM, Bennett LE, Novick RJ, Hosenpud JD. Single vs bilateral, sequential lung transplantation for end-stage emphysema: influence of recipient age on survival and secondary end-points. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001;20(9):935–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cassivi SD, Meyers BF, Battafarano RJ, Guthrie TJ, Trulock EP, Lynch JP, et al. Thirteen-year experience in lung transplantation for emphysema. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(5):1663–9; discussion 9-70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Burton CM, Milman N, Carlsen J, Arendrup H, Eliasen K, Andersen CB, et al. The Copenhagen National Lung Transplant Group: survival after single lung, double lung, and heart-lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(11):1834–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Güneş A, Aboyoun CL, Morton JM, Plit M, Malouf MA, Glanville AR. Lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at St Vincent’s Hospital. Intern Med J. 2006;36(1):5–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hadjiliadis D, Chaparro C, Gutierrez C, Steele MP, Singer LG, Davis RD, et al. Impact of lung transplant operation on bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(1):183–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stavem K, Bjørtuft Ø, Borgan Ø, Geiran O, Boe J. Lung transplantation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a national cohort is without obvious survival benefit. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25(1):75–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nwakanma LU, Simpkins CE, Williams JA, Chang DC, Borja MC, Conte JV, et al. Impact of bilateral versus single lung transplantation on survival in recipients 60 years of age and older: analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133(2):541–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thabut G, Ravaud P, Christie JD, Castier Y, Fournier M, Mal H, et al. Determinants of the survival benefit of lung transplantation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(10):1156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Delgado M, Borro JM, De La Torre MM, Fernández R, González D, Paradela M, et al. Lung transplantation as the first choice in emphysema. Transpl Proc. 2009;41(6):2207–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bennett DT, Zamora M, Reece TB, Mitchell JD, Cleveland JC Jr, Grover FL, et al. Continued utility of single-lung transplantation in select populations: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(2):437–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schaffer JM, Singh SK, Reitz BA, Zamanian RT, Mallidi HR. Single- vs double-lung transplantation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since the implementation of lung allocation based on medical need. JAMA. 2015;313(9):936–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gulack BC, Mulvihill MS, Ganapathi AM, Speicher PJ, Chery G, Snyder LD, et al. Survival after lung transplantation in recipients with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency compared to other forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a national cohort study. Transpl Int. 2018;31(1):45–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Crawford TC, Lui C, Magruder JT, Ha JS, Higgins RS, Merlo CA, et al. Five-year mortality hazard is reduced in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients receiving double- versus single-lung transplants. J Surg Res. 2019;237:118–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siddiqui FM, Diamond JM. Lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: past, present, and future directions. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2018;24(2):199–204.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Chambers DC, Yusen RD, Cherikh WS, Goldfarb SB, Kucheryavaya AY, Khusch K, et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirty-fourth adult lung and heart-lung transplantation report-2017; focus theme: allograft ischemic time. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36(10):1047–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yu-Chi Fang and Wen-Hsin Cheng contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No. 123 Dapi Road, Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC

    Yu-Chi Fang, Wen-Hsin Cheng, Hung-I Lu, Kai-Hao Chuang, Hsing-Hua Lai, Yu Chen, Li-Chun Chen & Chien-Ming Lo

  2. Department of Chest, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Yi-Shi Wang, Meng-Yun Tsai, Yu-Ping Chang & Kuo-Tung Huang

Authors
  1. Yu-Chi Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wen-Hsin Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hung-I Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yi-Shi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai-Hao Chuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hsing-Hua Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Li-Chun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Meng-Yun Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yu-Ping Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kuo-Tung Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Chien-Ming Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hung-I Lu, Yi -Shi Wang, and Chien-Ming Lo contributed to the research design. Yu-Chi Fang, Wen-Hsin Cheng, and Chien-Ming Lo drafted the manuscript. Kai-Hao Chuang, Hsing-Hua Lai, Yu Chen, and Li-Chun Chen performed the research. Wen-Feng Fang, Yu-Ping Chang, Kuo-Tung Huang, and Meng-Yun Tsai contributed new reagents or analytical tools. Kai-Hao Chuang, Hsing-Hua Lai, Yu Chen, Li-Chun Chen, and Meng-Yun Tsai participated in the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

None.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chien-Ming Lo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. This article used published accessible literature that did not contain deeply personal, sensitive, or confidential information of the participants. Therefore, institutional review board approval was not necessary.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Preoperative demographic characteristics; Operative demographics; Postoperative demographics. Collect some factors from inclusive studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, YC., Cheng, WH., Lu, HI. et al. Double lung transplantation is better than single lung transplantation for end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 19, 162 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02654-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02654-6

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us