Clinical judgment versus lung allocation score in predicting lung transplant waitlist mortality

Canadian lung transplant centers currently use a subjective and dichotomous "Status" ranking to prioritize waitlisted patients for lung transplantation. The lung allocation score (LAS) is an objective composite score derived from clinical parameters associated with both waitlist and post-transplant survival. We performed a retrospective cohort study to determine whether clinical judgment (Status) or LAS better predicted waitlist mortality. All adult patients listed for lung transplantation between 2007 and 2012 at three Canadian lung transplant programs were included. Status and LAS were compared in their ability to predict waitlist mortality using Cox proportional hazards models and C-statistics. Status and LAS were available for 1122 patients. Status 2 patients had a higher LAS compared to Status 1 patients (mean 40.8 (4.4) vs 34.6 (12.5), P = .0001). Higher LAS was associated with higher risk of waitlist mortality (HR 1.06 per unit LAS, 95% CI 1.05, 1.07, P < .001). LAS predicted waitlist mortality better than Status (C-statistic 0.689 vs 0.674). Patients classified as Status 2 and LAS ≥ 37 had the worst survival awaiting transplant, HR of 8.94 (95% CI 5.97, 13.37). LAS predicted waitlist mortality better than Status; however, the best predictor of waitlist mortality may be a combination of both LAS and clinical judgment.