Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scheav t1_iwd2efw wrote

Most transplant recipients die from unrelated causes. The statistic you used for lung transplants is out of date, and it was largely influenced by the first few people to receive lung transplants. The average life-span increases every year.


If the first lung transplant were done 5 years ago you could say that no lung transplant recipient lived longer than 5 years and you'd be [technically] correct, but thoroughly misleading.


Ophthalmologist t1_iwd44ov wrote

Mayo clinic states 5 year survival for lung transplant patients is around 50%. They usually keep their informational pages up to date.


scheav t1_iwd6tyy wrote

Whether or not the statistic is out of date, my point still stands that most of these deaths aren’t due to rejection. The reason that lung transplants are needed in the first place is often the cause of other health issues. Some lung transplants are done for cystic fibrosis and the transplant isn’t a cure, as the new lungs will be damaged by the disease as well.

If you lose a leg due to diabetes you’ll likely have lower lifespan than if you lose a leg due to acute trama. Pointing to lung transplant survival as indicative of survival after a limb transplant is incorrect and disingenuous.


Aviyara t1_iwh5rpu wrote

The three largest causes of death in solid-organ allografts (organ transplants) are cancer (which most immunosuppression courses are well-documented as increasing the incidence rate of), graft rejection, and infection.

I would not call any of these "unrelated causes." An allograft recipient is on immunosuppression for life.

You are correct, the prognosis of an allograft recipient gets better every year. This is not because allograft care in the late 20th century was spectacularly bad, and we're just making up for that statistical anomaly.

The first double-lung transplant recipient famously had her lungs outlive her.

Meanwhile, 41% of all lung transplant recipients in 2010 were dead by 2015.