Very complex issue

[Guest guest]

My doctors complained sometime back about the conservatism of some

centers, particularly UTSW because its near, in not using lungs from

older people. In spite of the fact over 50% of their recipients are

over 50, only 5% of their donors are. Now in an ideal world that

makes sense, but we're not in that world of unlimited lungs available

(note that this applies to all organ transplants). Obviously the goal

would be to give everyone needing a lung a healthy young set.

However, given reality, should the goal be to have the highest

percentages of successful transplants or to save the most lives

through transplant? Should the potential recipient perhaps even get a

say in advance as to how they would feel if they are 60 about a 55

year old set of lungs or a healthy 55 year old kidney or any other

organ.

Let me use an example too of patient selection. Shands is an

excellent facility. However, their success rate is barely under a

couple of the highest. But, I would put them at the top. Why? 20% of

their recipients are over 65 and 73% are over 50. 20% of their lungs

come from donors over 50. 50% of their donors died from stroke

(national average 39%). 50% of their recipients were in condition to

be hospitalized (national average 18%) and 27% were in ICU (national

average 9%).

Pretty impressive record I would say and not protected by selecting

in such a way as to make statistics look good.

I am frankly very excited right now for Gwynne too. I don't even want

to look at the math because its too good, but the odds now between

the two hospitals of her getting a transplant are tremendously

improved. That means the odds of a successful transplant are as well.

And I pray and somehow am convinced that I'm going to be eating lunch

with Gwynne in the not distant future and I'll be the only one on

oxygen.