Abstract
Post–lung transplant surveillance remains highly heterogeneous, with no universally accepted standard guiding organisation of care or the use of physiological testing, imaging, bronchoscopy, laboratory monitoring, and emerging biomarkers. This narrative review synthesises current surveillance practices across these domains and addresses key limitations, sources of inter-centre variability, and evidence gaps that hinder timely detection of allograft dysfunction. We summarize established and evolving approaches to organisation of care, lung function monitoring, radiological assessment, invasive diagnostics, and laboratory parameters, along with novel biomarkers, highlighting where evidence supports routine use and where tools remain investigational. Fragmentation of follow-up strategies, inconsistent interpretation of longitudinal data, and limited integration of novel diagnostics contribute to delayed recognition of graft injury and variable outcomes. Advancing post-transplant care will require consensus-driven definition of minimum surveillance standards, trajectory-based interpretation frameworks, and rational incorporation of validated biomarkers and digital technologies into harmonised follow-up pathways.
Introduction
Post–lung transplant (LTx) follow-up is complex, multidisciplinary, and highly variable across centres, with no universally adopted standard. Differences in the use of pulmonary function testing, imaging, laboratory testing, bronchoscopy, and emerging technologies result in substantial heterogeneity in clinical practice. In this narrative review, we summarise the current state-of-the-art approaches to LTx surveillance and highlight areas where practice varies and further harmonisation is needed. To inform this narrative review, we performed targeted PubMed searches between October 2025 and January 2026, focusing on available tools to monitor the graft after lung transplantation. Figure 1 provides a conceptual overview of the clinical trajectory from transplantation to graft failure, highlighting the key surveillance objectives that structure this review. The primary aim of our review is to highlight the existing variability in clinical practice and to identify the current gaps in standardization across surveillance strategies.
FIGURE 1
Post-lung transplant follow-up care organisation
The transplant pulmonologist as the central coordinator of care
LTx care is inherently a respiratory discipline and therefore must be anchored in specialised pulmonological follow-up. Transplant pulmonologists build on core respiratory training with dedicated expertise in lung allograft physiology, chest imaging, lung allograft-specific diagnostics including bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), transbronchial biopsies (TBB), advanced lung-function interpretation, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) phenotyping. Because most post-LTx complications present with respiratory abnormalities, early recognition and effective management require specialised pulmonary expertise. While multidisciplinary care is essential, no other specialty integrates respiratory physiology, imaging, and procedural assessment throughout long-term follow-up. This central coordinating role is particularly critical when integrating multimodal surveillance data and resolving discrepant findings (e.g., discordance between imaging, bronchoscopy, and emerging biomarkers), where expert clinical judgment is required to guide management.
General pulmonologists may also contribute meaningfully—especially for patients distant from transplant centres—but optimal outcomes require a specialized transplant pulmonologist-coordinated care model [] Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
Site of follow-up
Long-term surveillance is highly specialised, reflecting the interplay between complex allograft biology and substantial burden of extra-pulmonary comorbidities, and therefore requires coordinated multidisciplinary care within experienced transplant programmes []. LTx recipients frequently present with significant baseline multimorbidity—including cardiovascular, metabolic, and psychiatric conditions—which independently affects mortality and necessitates systematic assessment and follow-up [, ]. In parallel, increasing recognition of genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity in fibrotic lung disease underscores the need for centres capable of integrating molecular diagnostics, genetic screening, and precision-medicine approaches into post-transplant care [–].
Where follow-up is delivered also influences outcomes. In cystic fibrosis (CF), transplantation at centres hosting accredited CF programmes is associated with an approximately 33% lower risk of graft failure or death compared with non-CF centres, independent of centre volume []. More broadly, matched registry analyses demonstrate superior 5-year survival in European centres compared with North America despite similar early outcomes, suggesting that organisational structures and/or better access to long-term care meaningfully affect prognosis []. Advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) are increasingly embedded within LTx programmes to enhance continuity, coordinate routine surveillance, and comorbidity management, and serve as a liaison between transplant centres and local clinicians [, ].
Documentation and monitoring
Comprehensive and longitudinal documentation is essential for qualitative post-LTx follow-up. Fragmentation inherent to paper-based records has driven adoption of electronic logbooks and transplant registries that consolidate clinical visits, investigations, and interventions. These systems facilitate audit, enable linkage with national registries, and support quality-improvement initiatives [, ]. From the patient perspective, personal logbooks—physical or digital—promote engagement and awareness of key health metrics, while integration of electronic alerts for test scheduling and abnormal results further strengthens safety in long-term transplant care [, ].
Patient-reported outcomes and experience measurements (PROMs and PREMs)
Structured post-LTx follow-up integrates subjective and objective assessment. Subjective evaluation captures patient-reported symptoms, medication side effects, and psychosocial wellbeing and can be standardised through validated PROMs, several of which are established in LTx [, –]. PROMs extend beyond conventional clinical data by capturing health status and quality of life, including symptoms, functional status, and psychological wellbeing [, , ]. PREMs complement PROMs by assessing patients’ experience of care, including access, communication, coordination, and shared decision-making [].
Both tools can be integrated into clinical workflows through digital pre-visit questionnaires or tablet-based assessments, enabling real-time identification of patient needs, individualisation of care, and longitudinal monitoring. Standardised use of PROMs and PREMs also facilitates benchmarking across transplant centres and supports quality improvement initiatives [22].
Role of telemedicine
Telemedicine is increasingly used to extend specialist follow-up after LTx. Telemonitoring, teleconsultation, telerehabilitation, and telespirometry can enhance surveillance, support patient-centred care, and promote self-management []. The INSPIRE-III randomised trial demonstrated that telehealth-delivered coping skills and exercise interventions are feasible after LTx and provide modest benefits in psychological distress and functional capacity, particularly among patients with baseline depression []. Observational studies report high patient satisfaction and reduced travel burden, although most patients prefer periodic in-person visits for complex assessments [, , , ]. Collectively, available evidence supports a hybrid care model in which regular in-person follow-up at specialised centres is augmented—but not replaced—by structured telemedicine.
Telemedicine may also support assessment of treatment adherence by enabling earlier detection of missed doses or behavioural barriers. As non-adherence is a major determinant of graft survival [, , ], integrating remote monitoring with in-person care may facilitate earlier intervention. Nevertheless, in-person visits remain essential for adherence reinforcement through pharmacy refill checks, drug-level variability indices, and validated self-report tools such as BAASIS [–].
Pulmonary function testing
Spirometry
Spirometry remains the cornerstone of physiological allograft monitoring, with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) serving as the basis for detecting and following lung allograft dysfunction. Percent-predicted thresholds are derived from healthy populations measurements, nevertheless, in complex post-transplant setting—heavily affected by size matching, thoracic wall disturbances (caused by both primary diagnosis and surgical approaches), respiratory muscle weakness, or receiving unilateral or lobar transplant—percent-predicted values are often misleading in assessing normality [–]. Accordingly, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines define CLAD based on relative decline from an individualised post-transplant baseline using absolute FEV1 values rather than population norms []. To contextualise lung function with standard population-based norms, the term baseline lung allograft dysfunction (BLAD) has been proposed to describe recipients who never achieve expected predicted values, awaiting the publication of a consensus document from the ISHLT [–].
Spirometry interpretation is further complicated by historical drift from the original Tiffeneau–Pinelli index (FEV1/slow vital capacity; SVC) toward the forced expiratory ratio (FEV1/forced vital capacity; FVC). FVC may be underestimated during forceful expiration due to dynamic airway collapse, particularly in bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), thereby masking airflow obstruction [, ]. In contrast, SVC—measured during slow exhalation—more accurately reflects true vital capacity and minimises this artefact, as demonstrated in multiple studies [44–46]. Despite this, routine SVC measurement requires additional time, technical expertise, and transplant-specific reference values and current CLAD definitions therefore rely on FEV1/FVC, which should be interpreted cautiously and contextualised (i.e., with flow–volume loops) [, 47].
Machine learning (ML) introduces novel analytical approaches to spirometry, with preliminary data suggesting potential utility for CLAD prediction [48]. Digital home spirometry enables frequent remote monitoring with reliable FEV1 measurements that correlate well with laboratory values and may improve early detection of lung function decline [–].
Body plethysmography
In post-LTx clinical monitoring, plethysmography has prognostic value and is required for establishing total lung capacity (TLC) baseline (at 6 and 12 months post-transplant) and for restrictive CLAD diagnosis and phenotyping, including restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS) and "mixed/undefined phenotypes" []. Despite this, a recent comprehensive European survey revealed that approximately 16% of centres managing CLAD do not routinely use this method [49]. Another limitation occurs in patients with severe dyspnoea, who may be unable to perform the panting manoeuvre, leading to discomfort and unreliable resistance and volume measurements [50]. Consequently, reliable plethysmographic TLC measurement in advanced CLAD can be challenging, underscoring that TLC assessment is most informative during stable follow-up and early CLAD phenotyping. While the optimal measurement interval is not well established, extending intervals relative to standard spirometry may help mitigate cost and availability constraints.
Lung diffusion capacity testing
Reduced diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) has independent prognostic value for survival, with declines associated with increased mortality even after adjustment for FEV1 and FVC [51]. This suggests DLCO captures aspects of allograft health not reflected by spirometry or body plethysmography, likely related to gas exchange and pulmonary vascular integrity. DLCO is well-established for monitoring disease progression in interstitial lung diseases, where abnormalities often precede spirometric changes [52, 53], supporting its complementary role among pulmonary function tests, despite not being fully integrated into current post-transplant guidelines. Although TLC can be estimated using the single-breath helium dilution manoeuvre during DLCO testing, this method underestimates true TLC in the presence of ventilation inhomogeneity and is therefore less reliable than plethysmography [54].
Novel physiological methodology in lung transplant follow-up
Oscillometry measures distal airway resistance during tidal breathing and might be more sensitive than spirometry for detecting early rejection, although longitudinal data remain limited [, 55–58]. Because it relies on normal tidal breathing, oscillometry is particularly useful in patients unable to perform forced manoeuvres reliably, including children and frail individuals.
Fractional exhaled nitric oxide provides a rapid, non-invasive marker of airway inflammation and is elevated in infection, lymphocytic bronchiolitis, and acute rejection. However, despite high sensitivity, it lacks specificity and does not predict functional decline, limiting its role to supportive use during routine visits [59–63].
Lung clearance index, obtained by multiple-breath washout, detects ventilation heterogeneity and is highly sensitive to small-airway dysfunction, often preceding spirometric changes [63, 64]. Evidence is strongest in paediatric recipients, while adult data remain limited [65, 66].
Novel biomarkers
Exhaled breath condensate analysis combined with ML has shown promise in discriminating between different forms of lung allograft dysfunction, however, further validation is required, although the practicality and rapidity of electronic-nose platforms suggest potential as a point-of-care diagnostic tool [67, 68].
Imaging
Chest X-ray
Chest X-ray remains an essential first-line screening tool after LTx due to its rapid availability, low radiation exposure, and utility in detecting primary graft dysfunction and other post-transplant complications, including pneumothorax, pleural effusions, or pneumonia [69]. Acquisition of both posteroanterior and lateral projections is critical, as the lateral view improves detection of subtle pleural, parenchymal, and mediastinal abnormalities that may be missed on a single-plane projection [70].
Computed tomography (CT)
In contemporary practice, emphasis is better placed on CT protocol design than on older nomenclature such as high-resolution CT, because modern multidetector scanners generally provide high-resolution volumetric data. The clinically relevant distinction is whether appropriate non-contrast inspiratory and expiratory acquisitions are obtained, ideally using dose-optimized techniques [71]. Expiratory scans are particularly important, as it reveals air trapping—a hallmark feature of BOS—and frequently detects dysfunction earlier than inspiratory imaging [71–73]. However, its diagnostic utility depends strongly on acquisition quality, and inadequate expiratory effort can render studies non-diagnostic [71]. Standard CT retains a complementary role, particularly for assessing complications such as tree-in-bud, ground glass opacities, (sub)pleural consolidations, pulmonary embolism, vascular stenosis, large-airway pathology, or mediastinal abnormalities [73].
Surveillance CT
An initial baseline CT with both inspiratory and expiratory scans with a maximum width of 3-mm sections at 6 months post-LTx is recommended to enable a baseline for future comparison []. Among CT features, air-trapping is one of the most informative markers of BOS, outperforming mosaic perfusion, bronchiectasis, and bronchial wall thickening, although reported sensitivity varies [72, 74, 75]. Lung consolidations and pleural effusions have also been linked to subsequent BOS development and reduced survival [75].
Quantitative CT (qCT) techniques further enhance surveillance. Voxel-wise density mapping of paired inspiratory and expiratory scans at 6 months post-LTx outperformed conventional expiratory threshold-based methods and correlated with residual volume/TLC [76]. Longitudinal parametric response mapping links radiographic small-airway disease with peri-BOS FEV1 decline, supporting its adjunctive prognostic value [77]. A consensus on the minimum frequency of imaging required for routine graft surveillance after LTx is still lacking.
Diagnostic CT
Beyond routine surveillance, CT is essential when new respiratory symptoms or lung-function decline raise suspicion of acute or chronic allograft dysfunction, as it aids in identifing underlying causes such as infection, acute rejection, CLAD, or malignancy. Several reviews provide detailed guidance on post-LTx radiologic assessment and CLAD imaging patterns [78, 79].
In unilateral LTx recipients with a ≥10% FEV1 decline, combining pulmonary function testing with qCT metrics using supervised ML algorithms improved BOS detection compared with spirometry alone [80] and helped distinguish BOS from non-BOS causes of FEV1 decline [81]. Among patients with a 10%–20% FEV1 reduction, the presence of any abnormal parametric response mapping signature—functional small airway disease or parenchymal disease—was associated with shorter CLAD-free survival [82].
Although imaging contributes to CLAD subclassification, current ISHLT recommendations do not specify precise follow-up CT protocol that should be used []. Nevertheless, CT with paired inspiratory-expiratory scans could therefore be considered for all patients with suspected CLAD because of its phenotyping and prognostic value, and most European centres routinely acquire both inspiratory and expiratory scans at CLAD suspicion [49]. While air-trapping is frequently identified, it did not predict CLAD-free survival in a BOS cohort; in contrast, ground-glass opacities were associated with better outcomes, with deep neural networks demonstrating strong performance in BOS prediction [83]. Conversely, bronchiectasis, peribronchial thickening, and parenchymal changes were linked to inferior survival in BOS [84]. In RAS, prognostic interpretation of CT with expiratory scans remains heterogeneous, with some studies reporting no outcome correlation and others demonstrating prognostic value using inflammation-based scoring systems [85, 86]. qCT techniques—including texture analysis and CT density histograms—improve phenotyping and often predict BOS, RAS, or mixed phenotypes earlier, with clearer survival implications [87–89]. ML–enhanced radiology further refines prognostication; features such as reticulation and pulmonary vessel volume show strong diagnostic and prognostic performance, with pulmonary vessel volume emerging as a particular robust biomarker [90]. Although no formal guidelines define radiologic follow-up in established CLAD, serial CTs with expiratory scans may be appropriate in selected cases to assess phenotype transition from BOS to RAS, which may carry prognostic significance [91, 92].
Magnetic resonance
MRI is an emerging imaging tool in post-LTx follow-up. Hyperpolarised gas MRI—particularly 3He-MRI—can detect early regional ventilation abnormalities in BOS but remains limited by cost, 3He availability, and the need for specialised equipment [93, 94]. Consequently, more feasible non-hyperpolarised MRI techniques have gained interest. Oxygen transfer function MRI demonstrates reduced values in BOS [95], while functional approaches such as Fourier decomposition and phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI enable assesment of regional ventilation without contrast agents. In a cohort a cohort of 141 recipients, PREFUL ventilation metrics, including reduced relative fractional ventilation, predicted retransplantation or CLAD-related death, whereas FEV1 did not, with consistent threshold values reported across studies [96, 97]. Dynamic 19F MRI has similarly demonstrated quantifiable regional ventilation differences between CLAD and non-CLAD recipients, particularly in regional lung clearance indices, with strong correlations between peripheral ventilation and FEV1 [98].
Complementary imaging: ultrasound, PET–CT, and perfusion scintigraphy
Chest ultrasound after LTx is primarily used for bedside assessment of pleural effusions, diaphragmatic motion, and procedural guidance for thoracentesis [99]. Nuclear imaging provides complementary information: PET–CT can help distinguish infection, malignancy, and inflammation, and support evaluation of suspected RAS by identifying metabolically active fibrotic or inflammatory regions [73, 100]. Perfusion scintigraphy remains useful when pulmonary vascular disease is suspected, aiding differentiation between vascular causes of functional decline and CLAD-related pathology [101], and may also support early BOS detection in single LTx recipients [102].
Novel biomarkers
Emerging molecular imaging with fibroblast activation protein–targeted tracers offers the potential to non-invasively visualize fibrotic remodelling in lung allografts, providing a “biological” radiologic biomarker that may enable earlier detection and phenotyping of CLAD, although its use remains largely investigational [103].
Bronchoscopy
Follow-up protocols
Bronchoscopy with BAL and TBB remains the current gold standard for both surveillance and for-cause evaluation after LTx, enabling detection, confirmation, or exclusion of subclinical infection, rejection, or anastomotic complications, although no consensus exists regarding optimal surveillance intervals.
Comparisons between surveillance and for-cause bronchoscopy have yielded mixed results. Current evidence does not demonstrate that surveillance bronchoscopies improve survival or reduce CLAD, although most centres still perform them to detect subclinical rejection [104]. Interpretation across studies is limited by inconsistent definitions of “for-cause” bronchoscopy, typically triggered by FEV1 decline, new symptoms, hypoxaemia, or new radiological infiltrates. A recent meta-analysis including three small observational cohorts highlighted substantial heterogeneity in clinically indicated bronchoscopy use [105]. Detection rates for acute rejection were similar overall, although for-cause procedures yielded higher rates of grade A2–A4 acute cellular (ACR) rejection. Surveillance bronchoscopy nonetheless prompts therapeutic changes in 7%–31% of cases [106–108].
The goal of bronchoscopy strategies is to maximise diagnostic yield while minimising risk. Benefits include identification of infection and anastomotic complications and TBB remains the gold standard for diagnosing ACR and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). These advantages must be balanced against procedure-related risks, including pneumothorax (0.1%–2%) and bleeding (1.9%–13%) [107, 109–111], mostly biopsy-related and more frequent in LTx recipients [112].
Transbronchial biopsy
TBB is a cornerstone for definitive histologic diagnosis of graft injury/rejection after LTx, but it is limited by procedural risk, inadequate tissue yield, interobserver variability, and patient discomfort. Diagnostic sensitivity remains uncertain: early studies reported high sensitivity with extensive sampling [113], whereas modern practice (typically ≤5 samples) achieves only ∼30% sensitivity for acute rejection in both surveillance and for-cause procedures [107, 114, 115]. Interobserver agreement among pathologists is moderate to high for A-grade and fair for B-grade ACR [116, 117].
Surveillance TBB is supported by association between ACR or lymphocytic bronchiolitis and subsequent CLAD development [118–121], although correlations with overall survival are inconsistent [121, 122]. TBB has limited utility for CLAD detection [109] and it is not necessary for CLAD diagnosis []. Its diagnostic yield is highest within the first 12–16 weeks post-LTx, after which clinically significant findings decrease [106, 108].
Cryobiopsy remains investigational. A randomised study suggests comparable safety and diagnostic performance to forceps TBB, with higher specimen adequacy [123], and limited evidence indicates that four cryobiopsies may offer the best balance between diagnostic yield and safety [124], although the optimal number of samples required for ACR diagnosis remains undefined.
Endobronchial biopsies are an emerging, less invasive alternative to TBB, offering reproducible histologic and molecular markers of airway inflammation, ACR, and CLAD with a favourable safety profile, and may gain importance as molecular diagnostics evolve [125]. Additionally, airway brushing offers a minimally invasive means of sampling airway epithelial biology and has been used for molecular profiling of allograft injury—particularly CLAD—though its role in routine rejection surveillance remains investigational [126, 127].
Bronchoalveolar lavage
BAL samples the small airways and alveolar compartment, and remains essential for diagnosing infectious complications, a key contributor to CLAD development [, 128]. The ISHLT published a consensus statement in 2020, standardising BAL technique in LTx [104]. Observational studies show that surveillance BAL detects asymptomatic infections in 12%–40% of procedures, while for-cause BAL identifies pathogens in 39%–50% of cases [129, 130]. However, despite higher detection rates, surveillance BAL has not been shown to improve CLAD-free survival or overall survival. An ISHLT survey reported universal bacterial cultures of BAL fluid, with most centres also performing fungal (89%), mycobacterial (86%), and non-cytomegalovirus (CMV) viral polymerase chain reaction testing (70.2%) [104].
Immunoprofiling
BAL lymphocyte differential profiles can support clinical interpretation of allograft status but are not diagnostic. In the ISHLT survey, 61% of centres routinely requested BAL cytology—most commonly for suspected infection (23%), malignancy (35%), or rejection (13%)—yet evidence remains insufficient to define diagnostic accuracy [104]. Assessment of cellular composition is performed in 72% of centres, and several studies have shown that BAL neutrophilia (cut-off ∼15–20%) is associated with both concurrent and future CLAD, even in patients receiving azithromycin [131, 132]. Elevated BAL eosinophilia (1%–2%) has similarly been linked to reduced CLAD-free survival, particularly in RAS [106, 133–135]. Accordingly, ISHLT consensus recommends inclusion of differential cell counts in all post-transplant BAL samples [104].
Novel biomarkers
BAL has been extensively explored for LTx monitoring, including donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (e.g., IL-8, CXCL9–11), and extracellular vesicles or exosomes, yet none have been adopted into routine clinical practice [136–139]. In parallel, transcriptomic profiling of BAL cells is emerging as a tool for allograft assessment and tissue-based transcriptomics (already standard-of-care in kidney and heart transplantation) may offer enhanced precision and identify subclinical but remains investigational and not yet approved for LTx [140–146].
Blood monitoring
Therapeutic drug monitoring
Most recipients are maintained on calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)–based regimens combined with an antimetabolite and corticosteroids [, 147]. CNI have a narrow therapeutic index with substantial intra- and interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, making routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) essential [147]. CNI trough levels—measured immediately before the next dose—remain the standard approach despite the absence of universally accepted targets or monitoring intervals [148]. For mTOR inhibitors (sirolimus/everolimus), routine TDM is also recommended because of substantial pharmacokinetic variability and drug–drug interaction [149]. Although pharmacokinetics favour AUC-based monitoring over trough levels for mycophenolate, the need for multiple timed samples limits routine implementation, and targeted AUC assessment is therefore mainly reserved for situations with uncertain absorption, suspected drug–drug interactions, or during CNI transitions [150, 151]. Dried blood spot sampling of tacrolimus has shown promising feasibility and may improve convenience and patient engagement, although current evidence remains insufficient to support routine use [152, 153]. TDM is also relevant for key anti-infective agents used in LTx care. Triazole antifungals require monitoring due to highly variable exposure and potent cytochrome P4503A4-mediated interactions that increase CNI levels, antivirals such as (val)ganciclovir require renal function-guided dosing to balance efficacy and marrow toxicity, while aminoglycosides warrant level-guided dosing to maintain efficacy and limit nephrotoxicity in patients already exposed to CNI-related nephrotoxicity [154–157].
Donor-specific antibody testing
Evaluation of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies remains central to diagnosing AMR [158]. Practice patterns vary widely, ranging from low-sensitivity screening assays to routine use of high-resolution single-antigen bead platforms [159–161]. Some centres incorporate scheduled surveillance, whereas others reserve testing upon clinical deterioration [160–162]. Methodological rigour is essential: kidney transplant data indicate that nearly one-quarter of donor-specific antibodies may be misclassified using lower-resolution assays, underscoring the importance of high-fidelity testing in transplant recipients [163] Figure 3. Although evidence for non-HLA antibodies in allograft injury is increasing, it remains insufficient to justify their routine use in clinical decision-making after LTx [164, 165].
FIGURE 3
General haematological and biochemical monitoring
Comprehensive hematologic and biochemical evaluation provides valuable insight into immunologic and clinical status after LTx []. Leukopenia is common after LTx and has been associated with increased infectious complications and poorer clinical outcomes [166–168]. Immunophenotyping of lymphocytic subsets may help tailor immunosuppressive therapy, yet lung-transplant evidence remains scarce [169]. Eosinophilia, while nonspecific, may signal graft injury or early rejection [170]. Trends in haemoglobin and platelet counts can reveal marrow suppression, chronic disease anaemia, bleeding diatheses, or thrombotic microangiopathy [171–174].
Biochemical indices further refine clinical assessment. Elevations in C-reactive protein or procalcitonin may provide early, non-specific signals of inflammatory activity or systemic infection [175, 176]. Serum creatinine remains indispensable given well-recognised CNI nephrotoxicity, and liver enzyme abnormalities may indicate hepatotoxicity related to immunosuppressants, antifungals, or antivirals [177–180]. Broader metabolic screening is also important: dyslipidaemia is associated with post-transplant mortality, poor glycaemic control [181], and vitamin D deficiency is common and linked to higher rates of infection and adverse outcomes, and although lung-specific data are limited, routine thyroid function testing is often included to detect immunosuppression- or comorbidity-related endocrine disturbances [182–186].
From an immunologic perspective, hypogammaglobulinemia—particularly low IgG—correlates with increased infection burden, and while advanced immune phenotyping may offer additional insight into immunosuppressive intensity, current evidence does not support routine its clinical implementation [187–190].
Microbiological surveillance
Viral monitoring is now embedded in most follow-up pathways, although practices vary between centers. CMV viral load monitoring is widely used for surveillance and early detection of breakthrough viremia [191, 192]. Ebstein-Barr virus assessment is often pursued when evaluating the risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and may also provide indirect insight into the net state of immunosupression [193, 194]. Although best characterised in the kidney transplantation, polyomavirus infection is increasingly recognised in LTx, particularly in patients with unexplained renal dysfunction, where viremia or nephropathy should be considered [195, 196].
Novel biomarkers
Dd-cfDNA has emerged as a promising non-invasive biomarker of allograft health, with accumulating evidence and recent consensus statements from the European Society for Organ Transplantation highlighting its sensitivity for the early detection of allograft injury, including subclinical processes that may precede overt functional decline [197]. However, dd-cfDNA remains a non-specific marker of injury, as elevated levels do not differentiate between underlying causes such as acute rejection, infection, or other forms of graft damage, thereby necessitating correlation with clinical, functional, imaging, and histopathological findings [197, 198]. While these characteristics support its role as a complementary surveillance tool, its optimal integration into routine post-LTx care—including thresholds, timing, and clinical decision pathways—as well as its cost-effectiveness, remain to be defined. Ongoing prospective studies, including the LAMBDA-001 trial, are expected to provide important real-world data to better clarify its clinical utility and inform evidence-based implementation [197–199].
Torque teno virus load has emerged as a promising biomarker of the functional state of immunosuppression in LTx recipients, while epithelial injury markers such as club cell secretory protein, circulating extracellular vesicles/exosomes carrying lung self-antigens or immune-regulatory miRNAs, and cfDNA methylation–based tissue-of-origin mapping offer complementary insights into rejection biology, however, all remain investigational and lack sufficient validation for routine clinical implementation [139, 200–204].
Conclusion
Despite substantial advances in diagnostics and multidisciplinary care, post–LTx surveillance remains highly heterogeneous, with wide variation in organisational models, testing strategies, and integration of emerging tools. As summarised in Table 1, current follow-up practices are characterised by fragmented structures, inconsistent use of physiological, imaging, and procedural assessments, and a growing number of promising biomarkers that lack sufficient validation for routine clinical implementation. Moving the field forward will require practical, evidence-based, and consensus-driven guidance that defines minimum surveillance standards, emphasises trajectory-based interpretation of longitudinal data, and provides a clear framework for the stepwise incorporation of novel diagnostics and digital technologies into harmonised post-transplant care. Yet any meaningful standardization must acknowledge that surveillance practices are inevitably affected by geographical and logistical factors including healthcare system infrastructure, resource availability, reimbursement policies, and centre volume, which render a one-size-fits-all approach not desirable. Over-surveillance in low resource environments may divert capacity from higher-priority clinical needs which would be harmful for the overall program results. Ultimately, this highlights the critical gap where current clinical practice often reflects eminence-based rather than evidence-based decision-making; a gap that rigorous, consensus-driven standardisation can meaningfully close by establishing a minimum set of universal surveillance requirements, while offering an expanded framework of additional recommendations for higher-resourced centres with the capacity to implement them.
TABLE 1
| Domain/Section | Current practice/Strengths | Weak spots and limitations | Unmet needs/Future directions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-Up Organisation | Transplant pulmonologists coordinated care; structured clinics in many centres | Heterogeneous pathways; inconsistent coordination with local providers | Consensus on core organisational models; evidence linking structure to outcomes |
| Documentation and Monitoring | Electronic systems increasingly used; registries support auditing | Fragmentation between systems; inconsistent templates | Standardised templates; interoperable platforms; automatic alerts |
| Adherence | Use of BAASIS, refill data, drug levels | No gold standard; psychosocial drivers under-recognised | Validated LTx-specific tools; trials of adherence interventions |
| PROMs and PREMs | Growing use; digital tools feasible | Few validated tools; unclear clinical integration | Broader validation; guidance for real-time use |
| Site of Follow-Up and Telemedicine | Hybrid specialist–local care; telehealth expanding | No consensus on task division; variable infrastructure | Evidence-based shared-care models; telemonitoring standards |
| Spirometry | FEV1 and FEV1/FVC is cornerstone; widely accessible | % Predicted misclassification; SVC rarely measured | Transplant-specific LLN/z-scores; validation of FEV1/SVC. |
| Plethysmography | Central for CLAD phenotyping | Limited availability; difficult in severe dyspnoea | Consensus on TLC intervals; alternatives for advanced disease (e.g., imaging-derived lung volumes) |
| DLCO | Independent prognostic value; complements spirometry and phethysmography | Not in CLAD criteria; limited longitudinal data | Long-term studies; DLCO-informed longitudinal risk models |
| Imaging | CT with expiratory scans key for CLAD phenotyping; expiratory imaging valuable | No consensus intervals | Evidence-based imaging schedules; externally validated ML-enhanced CT models linked to outcomes |
| Laboratory Monitoring | TDM, DSA, viral PCR widely used | Assay variability; lack of unified thresholds | Harmonised protocols; integration of advanced biomarkers (e.g., dd-cfDNA) into longitudinal surveillance algorithms |
| Bronchoscopy Protocols | Widely used; early-phase utility clear | Survival/CLAD benefit unproven; heterogeneity high | Trials defining optimal schedules; personalised bronchoscopy intensity |
| TBB | Diagnostic standard for rejection | Low sensitivity for CLAD; interobserver variability | Standardisation; clinical validation of cryobiopsy and molecular transcriptomics |
| BAL and Immunoprofiling | Widely used for infection; consensus technique | Variable diagnostic cut-offs; cytology inconsistent | Prospective validation of BAL biomarkers; molecular signatures |
| Novel Biomarkers | Emerging biomarkers such as dd-cfDNA, transcriptomic signatures, exosomal markers, and immune profiling show promise for earlier or subclinical injury detection | Limited specificity for injury phenotype; uncertain thresholds; incomplete validation; unclear cost-effectiveness and real-world utility | Prospective validation; definition of actionable thresholds; biomarker-guided surveillance pathways; assessment of cost-benefit and implementation in routine care |
| ML/Digital Analytics | Increasing availability of multimodal digital data streams from lung function, imaging, laboratory testing, and remote monitoring creates opportunities for ML-supported surveillance | Most models remain retrospective, single-centre, and insufficiently validated; limited interpretability and uncertain clinical utility | External validation, calibration across centres, transparent reporting, and prospective trials assessing whether ML-supported surveillance improves outcomes and standardisation |
| Overall Strategy | Growing recognition of the need for multimodal, trajectory-based surveillance and increasing availability of digital data streams amenable to AI-based analysis | Absence of unified surveillance guidelines; high inter-centre variability; limited prospective validation and clinical integration of AI-driven tools | International consensus defining minimum surveillance standards, coupled with development and validation of multimodal, trajectory-based risk stratification tools incorporating AI. |
Major gaps in current post–LTx surveillance, highlighting limitations of existing practices, sources of inter-centre variability, and priority areas for future standardisation and evidence generation.
Statements
Author contributions
Conceptualization, Manuscript Drafting, Critical Review, and Editing: BS-G, JM, and AZ. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
JM reports unrestricted research grant from Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda Pharma, Vicore Pharma, and Mallinckrodt. These fees are unrelated to this work. BS-G reports grants and consultin fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Chiesi Spain, Sanofi, and Merck. These fees are unrelated to this work.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to improve language and readability. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content of the publication.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Abbreviations
ACR, Acute Cellular Rejection; AMR, Antibody Mediated Rejection; AUC, Area Under the Curve; BAL, Bronchoalveolar Lavage; BLAD, Baseline Lung Allograft Dysfunction; BOS, Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome; CF, Cystic Fibrosis; CLAD, Chronic Lung Allograft Dysfunction; CMV, Cytomegalovirus; CNI, Calcineurin Inhibitor; CT, Computed Tomography; Dd-cfDNA, Donor-derived Cell-free DNA; DLCO, Diffusing Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide; FEV1, Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second; FVC, Forced Vital Capacity; ISHLT, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation; LTx, Lung Transplantation; ML, Machine Learning; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PET–CT, Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography; PREMs, Patient-Reported Experience Measurements; PROMs, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements; qCT, Quantitative Computed Tomography; RAS, Restrictive Allograft Syndrome; SVC, Slow Vital Capacity; TBB, Transbronchial Biopsy; TDM, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring; TLC, Total Lung Capacity; 3He-MRI, Helium-3 Hyperpolarized MRI; 19F-MRI, Fluorine-19 MRI.
References
1.
BrownAWTallaricoEESteenV. Disease beyond the lungs: optimal care of multi-organ disease after lung transplantation. Chest (2025) 167(5):1282–4. 10.1016/j.chest.2024.09.036
2.
ChristieJDVan RaemdonckDFisherAJ. Lung transplantation. N Engl J Med (2024) 391(19):1822–36. 10.1056/NEJMra2401039
3.
RaghuGAmattoVCBehrJStowasserS. Comorbidities in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: a systematic literature review. Eur Respir J (2015) 46(4):1113–30. 10.1183/13993003.02316-2014
4.
DivoMCoteCde TorresJPCasanovaCMarinJMPinto-PlataVet alComorbidities and risk of mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2012) 186(2):155–61. 10.1164/rccm.201201-0034OC
5.
MesliFPhilippotQEl HusseiniKBunelVKannengiesserCDebrayMPet alTelomere biology disorders in lung transplantation: clinical challenges and management strategies. JHLT Open (2025) 9:100333. 10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100333
6.
BanaszakLGSmith-SimmerKShogerKLovrienLMalikASandboNet alImplementation of a prospective screening strategy to identify adults with a telomere biology disorder among those undergoing lung transplant evaluation for interstitial lung disease. Respir Med (2023) 220:107464. 10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107464
7.
Alonso-GonzalezATosco-HerreraEMolina-MolinaMFloresC. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and the role of genetics in the era of precision medicine. Front Med (Lausanne) (2023) 10:1152211. 10.3389/fmed.2023.1152211
8.
BushELKrishnanAChidiAPNolleyEAgbor-EnohSWestNEet alThe effect of the cystic fibrosis care center on outcomes after lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis. J Heart Lung Transpl (2022) 41(3):300–7. 10.1016/j.healun.2021.11.013
9.
YangZTakahashiTTeradaYMeyersBFKozowerBDPattersonGAet alA comparison of outcomes after lung transplantation between European and North American centers. J Heart Lung Transpl (2022) 41(12):1729–35. 10.1016/j.healun.2022.07.014
10.
ChambersHEReinschmidtKSmithGAgudeloEBrodahlKHerrimanEet alExamining the critical role of advanced practice providers on a multidisciplinary transplant team. Am J Transpl (2021) 21(12):3840–6. 10.1111/ajt.16715
11.
van ZantenRvan DijkMvan RosmalenJBeckDZietseRVan HeckeAet alNurse-led self-management support after organ transplantation-protocol of a multicentre, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. Trials (2022) 23(1):14. 10.1186/s13063-021-05896-0
12.
WursterFFüttererGBeckmannMDittmerKJaschkeJKöberlein-NeuJet alThe analyzation of change in documentation due to the introduction of electronic patient records in Hospitals-A systematic review. J Med Syst (2022) 46(8):54. 10.1007/s10916-022-01840-0
13.
DuettmannWNaikMGZukunftBOsmonodjaBBachmannFChoiMet aleHealth in transplantation. Transpl Int (2021) 34(1):16–26. 10.1111/tri.13778
14.
EvaldLGraarupJHøjskovIE. Diary for self-observation: a self-management tool for recipients of lung transplantation-A pilot study. Nurs Open (2020) 7(6):1766–73. 10.1002/nop2.562
15.
WijbengaNHoekRASMathotBJSeghersLvan WeezelJJden OudenJet alEvaluation of a home monitoring application for follow up after lung Transplantation-A pilot study. J Pers Med (2020) 10(4):240. 10.3390/jpm10040240
16.
MagnussonJMZajacováASaez-GimenezB. Risk factors for chronic lung allograft dysfunction and graft surveillance. In: PerchMMeloniFVosR, editors. Lung transplantation. Sheffield, UK: European Respiratory Society (2024). p. 210–32. 10.1183/2312508X.10002324
17.
Shahabeddin PariziAKrabbePFMVerschuurenEAMHoekRASKwakkel-van ErpJMErasmusMEet alPatient-reported health outcomes in long-term lung transplantation survivors: a prospective cohort study. Am J Transpl (2018) 18(3):684–95. 10.1111/ajt.14492
18.
BleischBSchuurmansMMKlaghoferRBendenCSeilerAJeneweinJ. Health-related quality of life and stress-related post-transplant trajectories of lung transplant recipients: a three-year follow-up of the Swiss transplant cohort study. Swiss Med Wkly (2019) 149:w20019. 10.57187/smw.2019.20019
19.
RosenbergerEMDeVito DabbsAJDiMartiniAFLandsittelDPPilewskiJMDewMA. Long-term Follow-up of a randomized controlled trial evaluating a Mobile health intervention for self-management in lung transplant recipients. Am J Transpl (2017) 17(5):1286–93. 10.1111/ajt.14062
20.
DenhaerynckKBurkhalterFSchäfer-KellerPSteigerJBockADe GeestS. Clinical consequences of non adherence to immunosuppressive medication in kidney transplant patients. Transpl Int (2009) 22(4):441–6. 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00820.x
21.
KuglerCFischerSGottliebJTegtburUWelteTGoerlerHet alSymptom experience after lung transplantation: impact on quality of life and adherence. Clin Transpl (2007) 21(5):590–6. 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00693.x
22.
SingerJPSoongAChenJShresthaPZhuoHGaoYet alDevelopment and preliminary validation of the lung transplant quality of life (LT-QOL) survey. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2019) 199(8):1008–19. 10.1164/rccm.201806-1198OC
23.
GholamzadehMAbtahiHSafdariR. Telemedicine in lung transplant to improve patient-centered care: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform (2022) 167:104861. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104861
24.
BlumenthalJAMabeSArthurDFrankelCMcKeeDCMorrisonSet alTelehealth interventions to improve outcomes in lung transplant recipients: primary results of the INSPIRE-III randomized clinical trial. J Heart Lung Transpl (2025) 44(9):1449–59. 10.1016/j.healun.2025.03.017
25.
KimJVillalonga-OlivesEDoumatGVesselinovRMHuapayaJAAbbasHMNet alPatient satisfaction with lung transplant telemedicine: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health (2025) 31(10):1228–35. 10.1089/tmj.2025.0090
26.
LeskoMBRudymDKonZSnodgrassCSureauKAngelLFet alTelehealth and home monitoring in lung transplant. J Heart Lung Transpl (2020) 39(4 Suppl. l):S383. 10.1016/j.healun.2020.01.492
27.
CorrMWalkerAMaxwellAPMcKayGJ. Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications in kidney transplant recipients-a systematic scoping review. Transpl Rev (Orlando) (2025) 39(1):100900. 10.1016/j.trre.2024.100900
28.
Korb-SavoldelliVSabatierBGillaizeauFGuillemainRPrognonPBéguéDet alNon-adherence with drug treatment after heart or lung transplantation in adults: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns (2010) 81(2):148–54. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.013
29.
Schäfer-KellerPSteigerJBockADenhaerynckKDe GeestS. Diagnostic accuracy of measurement methods to assess non-adherence to immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transpl (2008) 8(3):616–26. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02127.x
30.
DenhaerynckKDobbelsFKošťálováBDe GeestSConsortiumBAASIS. Psychometric properties of the BAASIS: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Transplantation (2023) 107(8):1795–809. 10.1097/TP.0000000000004574
31.
LiebMHeppTSchifferMOpgenoorthMErimY. Accuracy and concordance of measurement methods to assess non-adherence after renal transplantation - a prospective study. BMC Nephrol (2020) 21(1):114. 10.1186/s12882-020-01781-1
32.
CooperBGStocksJHallGLCulverBSteenbruggenICarterKWet alThe global lung function initiative (GLI) network: bringing the world's respiratory reference values together. Breathe (Sheff). (2017) 13(3):e56–e64. 10.1183/20734735.012717
33.
QuanjerPHStanojevicSColeTJBaurXHallGLCulverBHet alMulti-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3-95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J (2012) 40(6):1324–43. 10.1183/09031936.00080312
34.
MillerMRQuanjerPHSwanneyMPRuppelGEnrightPL. Interpreting lung function data using 80% predicted and fixed thresholds misclassifies more than 20% of patients. Chest (2011) 139(1):52–9. 10.1378/chest.10-0189
35.
SengpielJFuehnerTKuglerCAvsarMBodmannIBoemkeAet alUse of telehealth technology for home spirometry after lung transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Prog Transpl (2010) 20(4):310–7. 10.1177/152692481002000402
36.
BoenteRDSchachtSBortonRVincentJGolzarri-ArroyoLRattrayN. Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of remote spirometric monitoring for rural patients with interstitial lung disease: a multimethod approach. Respir Res (2024) 25(1):92. 10.1186/s12931-024-02735-z
37.
OdishoAYLiuAWMaioranoARBigazziMOAMedinaELeardLEet alDesign and implementation of a digital health home spirometry intervention for remote monitoring of lung transplant function. J Heart Lung Transpl (2023) 42(6):828–37. 10.1016/j.healun.2023.01.010
38.
VerledenGMGlanvilleARLeaseEDFisherAJCalabreseFCorrisPAet alChronic lung allograft dysfunction: definition, diagnostic criteria, and approaches to treatment-A consensus report from the pulmonary council of the ISHLT. J Heart Lung Transpl (2019) 38(5):493–503. 10.1016/j.healun.2019.03.009
39.
LiuJJacksonKWeinkaufJKapasiAHirjiAMeyerSet alBaseline lung allograft dysfunction is associated with impaired survival after double-lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2018) 37(7):895–902. 10.1016/j.healun.2018.02.014
40.
LiDWeinkaufJKapasiAHirjiAVarugheseRLienDet alBaseline lung allograft dysfunction in primary graft dysfunction survivors after lung transplantation. Respir Med (2021) 188:106617. 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106617
41.
KellerMBSunJAlnababtehMPonorLD ShahPMathewJet alBaseline lung allograft dysfunction after bilateral lung transplantation is associated with an increased risk of death: results from a multicenter cohort study. Transpl Direct (2024) 10(7):e1669. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001669
42.
TiffeneauRPinelliA. Circulating air and captive air in the exploration of the pulmonary ventilator function. Paris Med (1947) 37:624–8.
43.
PellegrinoRViegiGBrusascoVCrapoROBurgosFCasaburiRet alInterpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J (2005) 26(5):948–68. 10.1183/09031936.05.00035205
44.
BarrosARPiresMBRaposoNM. Importance of slow vital capacity in the detection of airway obstruction. J Bras Pneumol (2013) 39(3):317–22. 10.1590/S1806-37132013000300008
45.
Saint-PierreMLadhaJBertonDCReimaoGCastelliGMarillierMet alIs the slow vital capacity clinically useful to uncover airflow limitation in subjects with preserved FEV1/FVC ratio?Chest (2019) 156(3):497–506. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.001
46.
FortisSComellasAPBhattSPHoffmanEAHanMKBhaktaNRet alRatio of FEV1/Slow vital capacity of < 0.7 is associated with clinical, functional, and radiologic features of obstructive lung disease in smokers with preserved lung function. Chest (2021) 160(1):94–103. 10.1016/j.chest.2021.01.067
47.
FilaLZajacovaA. Navigating the pitfalls of pulmonary function testing in chronic lung allograft dysfunction and chronic pulmonary graft-versus-host disease. Eur J Intern Med (2025) 141:106500. 10.1016/j.ejim.2025.106500
48.
KerckhofPVerstraeteKBeeckmansHVosRMcdonoughJVanaudenaerdeBet alMachine learning of spirometry May predict CLAD onset after lung transplantation. Presented Eur Respir Soc (Ers) Congress (2024) OA989. 10.1183/13993003.congress-2024.OA989
49.
GottliebJVosRJakschPHellemonsMHolmAMMorlacchiLCet alChronic lung allograft dysfunction after lung transplantation: prevention, diagnosis and treatment in 44 European centres. ERJ Open Res (2025) 11(3):00675–2024. 10.1183/23120541.00675-2024
50.
O'DonnellCRBankierAAStiebellehnerLReillyJJBrownRLoringSH. Comparison of plethysmographic and helium dilution lung volumes: which is best for COPD?Chest (2010) 137(5):1108–15. 10.1378/chest.09-1504
51.
DarleyDRMaJHusztiEGhanyRHutcheonMChowCWet alDiffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide: association with long-term outcomes after lung transplantation in a 20-year longitudinal study. Eur Respir J (2022) 59(1):2003639. 10.1183/13993003.03639-2020
52.
WuytsWAWijsenbeekMBondueBBourosDBresserPRobalo CordeiroCet alIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: best practice in monitoring and managing a relentless fibrotic disease. Respiration (2020) 99(1):73–82. 10.1159/000504763
53.
LeeHKimSYParkYSChoiSMLeeJHParkJ. Prognostic implication of 1-year decline in diffusing capacity in newly diagnosed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Sci Rep (2024) 14(1):8857. 10.1038/s41598-024-59649-5
54.
BhaktaNRMcGowanARamseyKABorgBKivastikJKnightSLet alEuropean respiratory society/american thoracic society technical statement: standardisation of the measurement of lung volumes, 2023 update. Eur Respir J (2023) 62(4):2201519. 10.1183/13993003.01519-2022
55.
ChoEWuJKYBirrielDCMatelskiJNadjRDeHaasEet alAirway oscillometry detects spirometric-silent episodes of acute cellular rejection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2020) 201(12):1536–44. 10.1164/rccm.201908-1539OC
56.
VasilevaAHanafiNHusztiEMatelskiJBelousovaNWuJKYet alIntra-subject variability in oscillometry correlates with acute rejection and CLAD post-lung transplant. Front Med (Lausanne) (2023) 10:1158870. 10.3389/fmed.2023.1158870
57.
SimJPYNilsenKBorgBMLevveyBVaziraniJEnnisSet alOscillometry in stable single and double lung allograft recipients transplanted for interstitial lung disease: results of a multi-center Australian study. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11758. 10.3389/ti.2023.11758
58.
CrowhurstTDButlerJABussellLAJohnstonSDYeungDHodgeGet alImpulse oscillometry versus spirometry to detect bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in bilateral lung transplant recipients: a prospective diagnostic study. Transplantation (2024) 108(4):1004–14. 10.1097/TP.0000000000004868
59.
KingGGBatesJBergerKICalverleyPde MeloPLDellacàRLet alTechnical standards for respiratory oscillometry. Eur Respir J (2020) 55(2):1900753. 10.1183/13993003.00753-2019
60.
SilkoffPECaramoriMTremblayLMcCleanPChaparroCKestenSet alExhaled nitric oxide in human lung transplantation. A noninvasive marker of acute rejection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1998) 157(6 Pt 1):1822–8. 10.1164/ajrccm.157.6.9707159
61.
GashoutaMAMerloCAPipelingMRMcDyerJFHayangaJWAOrensJBet alSerial monitoring of exhaled nitric oxide in lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl (2015) 34(4):557–62. 10.1016/j.healun.2014.09.026
62.
VerledenGMDupontLJDelcroixMVan RaemdonckDVanhaeckeJLerutTet alExhaled nitric oxide after lung transplantation: impact of the native lung. Eur Respir J (2003) 21(3):429–32. 10.1183/09031936.03.00023003a
63.
AntusBCsiszerECzebeKHorvathI. Pulmonary infections increase exhaled nitric oxide in lung transplant recipients: a longitudinal study. Clin Transpl (2005) 19(3):377–82. 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2005.00354.x
64.
StanojevicSBowermanCRobinsonP. Multiple breath washout: measuring early manifestations of lung pathology. Breathe (Sheff). (2021) 17(3):210016. 10.1183/20734735.0016-2021
65.
KaoJEZirbesJMConradCKMillaCE. Lung clearance index is sensitive to small airway disease in pediatric lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl (2017) 36(9):980–4. 10.1016/j.healun.2017.05.004
66.
DriskelMHorsleyAFretwellLClaytonNAl-AloulM. Lung clearance index in detection of post-transplant bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. ERJ Open Res (2019) 5(4):00164–2019. 10.1183/23120541.00164-2019
67.
WijbengaNMathotBJvan PelRSeghersLMoorCCAertsJGJVet alThe ability of an electronic nose to distinguish between complications in lung transplant recipients. Am J Transpl (2025) 25(4):804–13. 10.1016/j.ajt.2024.11.009
68.
WijbengaNHoekRASMathotBJSeghersLMoorCCAertsJGJVet alDiagnostic performance of electronic nose technology in chronic lung allograft dysfunction. J Heart Lung Transpl (2023) 42(2):236–45. 10.1016/j.healun.2022.09.009
69.
SnellGIYusenRDWeillDStrueberMGarrityEReedAet alReport 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 Transpl (2017) 36(10):1097–103. 10.1016/j.healun.2017.07.021
70.
CalvertADHazeltonTR. Role of imaging in lung transplantation evaluation. J Thorac Dis (2020) 12(9):5147–58. 10.21037/jtd.2019.08.35
71.
SankaranRCyproAHasenstabKStewardAMAfsharKGoltsEet alClinical implementation of inspiratory-expiratory chest CT: defining quality criteria for diagnostic quality and detection of concurrent FEV1 decline following lung transplantation. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging (2025) 7(5):e240468. 10.1148/ryct.240468
72.
KonenEGutierrezCChaparroCMurrayCPChungTCrossinJet alBronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in lung transplant recipients: can thin-section CT findings predict disease before its clinical appearance?Radiology (2004) 231(2):467–73. 10.1148/radiol.2312030563
73.
DeFreitasMRMcAdamsHPAzfar AliHIranmaneshAMChalianH. Complications of lung transplantation: update on imaging manifestations and management. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging (2021) 3(4):e190252. 10.1148/ryct.2021190252
74.
LeeESGotwayMBReddyGPGoldenJAKeithFMWebbWR. Early bronchiolitis obliterans following lung transplantation: accuracy of expiratory thin-section CT for diagnosis. Radiology (2000) 216(2):472–7. 10.1148/radiology.216.2.r00au21472
75.
HabertPChetritECoiffardBBregeonFThomasPLoundouAet alEarly chest CT abnormalities to predict the subsequent occurrence of chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Insights Imaging (2023) 14(1):154. 10.1186/s13244-023-01509-3
76.
SolyanikOHollmannPDettmerSKaireitTSchaefer-ProkopCWackerFet alQuantification of pathologic air trapping in lung transplant patients using CT density mapping: Comparison with other CT air trapping measures. PLoS One (2015) 10(10):e0139102. 10.1371/journal.pone.0139102
77.
VerledenSEVosRVandermeulenERuttensDBellonHHeiglTet alParametric response mapping of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome progression after lung transplantation. Am J Transpl (2016) 16(11):3262–9. 10.1111/ajt.13945
78.
KimSJAzourLHutchinsonBDShirsatHZhouFNarulaNet alImaging course of lung transplantation: from patient selection to postoperative complications. Radiographics (2021) 41(4):1043–63. 10.1148/rg.2021200173
79.
BrunALChabiMLPicardCMellotFGrenierPA. Lung transplantation: CT assessment of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Diagnostics (Basel) (2021) 11(5):817. 10.3390/diagnostics11050817
80.
BarbosaEMSimpsonSLeeJCTustisonNGeeJShouH. Multivariate modeling using quantitative CT metrics may improve accuracy of diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome after lung transplantation. Comput Biol Med (2017) 89:275–81. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.08.016
81.
BarbosaEJMJLanclusMVosWVan HolsbekeCDe BackerWDe BackerJet alMachine learning algorithms utilizing quantitative CT features May predict eventual onset of Bronchiolitis Obliterans syndrome after lung transplantation. Acad Radiol (2018) 25(9):1201–12. 10.1016/j.acra.2018.01.013
82.
BelloliEAGuTWangYVummidiDLyuDMCombsMPet alRadiographic graft surveillance in lung transplantation: prognostic role of parametric response mapping. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2021) 204(8):967–76. 10.1164/rccm.202012-4528OC
83.
KozińskiMOnerDGwizdałaJBeigelman-AubryCFuaPKoutsokeraAet alHarnessing deep learning to detect bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome from chest CT. Commun Med (Lond) (2025) 5(1):18. 10.1038/s43856-025-00732-x
84.
Van HerckABeeckmansHKerckhofPSacreasAKaesJVanstapelA.et alPrognostic value of chest CT findings at BOS diagnosis in lung transplant recipients. Transplantation (2023) 107(11):e292–e304. 10.1097/TP.0000000000004726
85.
VerledenSEde JongPARuttensDVandermeulenEvan RaemdonckDEVerschakelenJet alFunctional and computed tomographic evolution and survival of restrictive allograft syndrome after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2014) 33(3):270–7. 10.1016/j.healun.2013.12.011
86.
DettmerSShinHOVogel-ClaussenJWestphalMHaverichAWarneckeGet alCT at onset of chronic lung allograft dysfunction in lung transplant patients predicts development of the restrictive phenotype and survival. Eur J Radiol (2017) 94:78–84. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.008
87.
WeigtSSKimGJJonesHDRamseyALAmubieyaOAbtinFet alQuantitative image analysis at chronic lung allograft dysfunction onset predicts mortality. Transplantation (2022) 106(6):1253–61. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003950
88.
DettmerSSuhlingHKlingenbergIOttenOKaireitTFugeJet alLobe-wise assessment of lung volume and density distribution in lung transplant patients and value for early detection of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Eur J Radiol (2018) 106:137–44. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.016
89.
HorieMSalazarPSaitoTBinnieMBrockKYasufukuKet alQuantitative chest CT for subtyping chronic lung allograft dysfunction and its association with survival. Clin Transpl (2018) 32(5):e13233. 10.1111/ctr.13233
90.
McInnisMCMaJKarurGRHouboisCLevyLHavlinJet alChronic lung allograft dysfunction phenotype and prognosis by machine learning CT analysis. Eur Respir J (2022) 60(1):2101652. 10.1183/13993003.01652-2021
91.
FuchsELevyLHusztiERenaud-PicardBBerraGKawashimaMet alSignificance of phenotype change after chronic lung allograft dysfunction onset. Transpl Int (2021) 34(12):2620–32. 10.1111/tri.14157
92.
PeräkyläLNykänenAPiilonenAKesävuoriRHalmeMRaivioP. Transition from BOS to RAS impairs prognosis after lung transplantation-CLAD subtype analysis by CT volumetry. PLoS One (2022) 17(10):e0275563. 10.1371/journal.pone.0275563
93.
GastKKZaporozhanJLeySBiedermannAKnitzFEberleBet al(3)He-MRI in follow-up of lung transplant recipients. Eur Radiol (2004) 14(1):78–85. 10.1007/s00330-003-2092-4
94.
McAdamsHPPalmerSMDonnellyLFCharlesHCTapsonVFMacFallJR. Hyperpolarized 3He-enhanced MR imaging of lung transplant recipients: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol (1999) 173(4):955–9. 10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511156
95.
RenneJLauermannPHinrichsJBSchönfeldCSorrentinoSGutberletMet alChronic lung allograft dysfunction: oxygen-Enhanced T1-Mapping MR imaging of the lung. Radiology (2015) 276(1):266–73. 10.1148/radiol.15141486
96.
Vogel-ClaussenJKaireitTFVoskrebenzevAKlimešFGlandorfJBehrendtLet alPhase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI-derived ventilation and perfusion parameters predict future lung transplant loss. Radiology (2023) 307(4):e221958. 10.1148/radiol.221958
97.
MoherATVoskrebenzevAGreerMBeckerLKaireitTFWelteTet alMRI-derived regional flow-volume loop parameters detect early-stage chronic lung allograft dysfunction. J Magn Reson Imaging (2019) 50(6):1873–82. 10.1002/jmri.26799
98.
NealMABosSHollandCWHollingsworthKGMeacheryGNairAet alDynamic 19F-MRI of pulmonary ventilation in lung transplant recipients with and without chronic lung allograft dysfunction. JHLT Open (2024) 7:100167. 10.1016/j.jhlto.2024.100167
99.
DanielMLangEHuynhTMMartinJBrebionMGuessousKet alPrevalence and time-course of diaphragmatic dysfunction following lung resection: a repeated ultrasonic assessment. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med (2022) 41(2):101024. 10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101024
100.
VerledenSEGheysensOGoffinKEVanaudenaerdeBMVerbekenEKWeynandBet alRole of 18F-FDG PET/CT in restrictive allograft syndrome after lung transplantation. Transplantation (2019) 103(4):823–31. 10.1097/TP.0000000000002393
101.
PinhoDFBangaATorresFMathewsD. Ventilation perfusion pulmonary scintigraphy in the evaluation of pre-and post-lung transplant patients. Transpl Rev (Orlando) (2019) 33(2):107–14. 10.1016/j.trre.2018.10.003
102.
OuwensJPvan der BijWvan der MarkTWGeertsmaAPiersDAde BoerWJet alThe value of ventilation scintigraphy after single lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2004) 23(1):115–21. 10.1016/s1053-2498(03)00067-6
103.
MiyashitaYKaihoTNagataHHiroshimaTSugiuraYZhangKet alExploring fibroblast activation protein as an early biomarker in chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Eur Respir J (2025):2501738. 10.1183/13993003.01738-2025
104.
MartinuTKoutsokeraABendenCCantuEChambersDCypelMet alInternational society for heart and lung transplantation consensus statement for the standardization of bronchoalveolar lavage in lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2020) 39(11):1171–90. 10.1016/j.healun.2020.07.006
105.
FrickeKSieviNASchmidtFPSchuurmansMMKohlerM. Efficacy of surveillance bronchoscopy versus clinically indicated bronchoscopy for detection of acute lung transplant rejection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ERJ Open Res (2024) 10(5):00404–2024. 10.1183/23120541.00404-2024
106.
FryeBCGasplmayrMHettichIZisselGMüller-QuernheimJ. Surveillance bronchoscopy for the care of lung transplant recipients: a retrospective single center analysis. Transpl Proc (2021) 53(1):265–72. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.08.011
107.
McWilliamsTJWilliamsTJWhitfordHMSnellGI. Surveillance bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients: risk versus benefit. J Heart Lung Transpl (2008) 27(11):1203–9. 10.1016/j.healun.2008.08.004
108.
TakizawaDBde CastroCCBPaivaMACamposSVCarraroRMCostaANet alSurveillance bronchoscopy in lung transplantation recipients: a single center experience analysis. Transpl Proc (2020) 52(5):1380–3. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.029
109.
GlanvilleAR. Bronchoscopic monitoring after lung transplantation. Semin Respir Crit Care Med (2010) 31(2):208–21. 10.1055/s-0030-1249117
110.
SandriniAGlanvilleAR. The controversial role of surveillance bronchoscopy after lung transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transpl (2009) 14(5):494–8. 10.1097/MOT.0b013e3283300a3b
111.
RademacherJSuhlingHGreerMHaverichAWelteTWarneckeGet alSafety and efficacy of outpatient bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients - a single centre analysis of 3,197 procedures. Transpl Res (2014) 3:11. 10.1186/2047-1440-3-11
112.
GlanvilleAR. The role of bronchoscopic surveillance monitoring in the care of lung transplant recipients. Semin Respir Crit Care Med (2006) 27(5):480–91. 10.1055/s-2006-954606
113.
ScottJPFradetGSmythRLMullinsPPrattAClellandCAet alProspective study of transbronchial biopsies in the management of heart-lung and single lung transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transpl (1991) 10(5 Pt 1):626–37.
114.
ChanCCAbi-SalehWJArroligaACStillwellPCKirbyTJGordonSMet alDiagnostic yield and therapeutic impact of flexible bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl (1996) 15(2):196–205.
115.
ChakinalaMMRitterJGageBFLynchJPAloushAPattersonGAet alYield of surveillance bronchoscopy for acute rejection and lymphocytic bronchitis/bronchiolitis after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2004) 23(12):1396–404. 10.1016/j.healun.2003.09.018
116.
StephensonAFlintJEnglishJVedalSFradetGChittockDet alInterpretation of transbronchial lung biopsies from lung transplant recipients: inter- and intraobserver agreement. Can Respir J (2005) 12(2):75–7. 10.1155/2005/483172
117.
ColombatMGroussardOLautretteAThabutGMarrash-ChahlaRBrugièreOet alAnalysis of the different histologic lesions observed in transbronchial biopsy for the diagnosis of acute rejection. Clinicopathologic correlations during the first 6 months after lung transplantation. Hum Pathol (2005) 36(4):387–94. 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.01.022
118.
VerledenSERuttensDVandermeulenEVaneylenADupontLJVan RaemdonckDEet alBronchiolitis obliterans syndrome and restrictive allograft syndrome: do risk factors differ?Transplantation (2013) 95(9):1167–72. 10.1097/TP.0b013e318286e076
119.
BurtonCMIversenMCarlsenJAndersenCB. Interstitial inflammatory lesions of the pulmonary allograft: a retrospective analysis of 2697 transbronchial biopsies. Transplantation (2008) 86(6):811–9. 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181852f02
120.
SharplesLDMcNeilKStewartSWallworkJ. Risk factors for bronchiolitis obliterans: a systematic review of recent publications. J Heart Lung Transpl (2002) 21(2):271–81. 10.1016/s1053-2498(01)00360-6
121.
GlanvilleARAboyounCLHavrykAPlitMRainerSMaloufMA. Severity of lymphocytic bronchiolitis predicts long-term outcome after lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2008) 177(9):1033–40. 10.1164/rccm.200706-951OC
122.
ValentineVGGuptaMRWeillDLombardGALaPlaceSGSeoaneLet alSingle-institution study evaluating the utility of surveillance bronchoscopy after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2009) 28(1):14–20. 10.1016/j.healun.2008.10.010
123.
SteinackCRoederMVesenbeckhSHabereckerMRüschoffJHHageRet alTransbronchial cryobiopsy alone versus combined with traditional forceps biopsy for acute cellular rejection in lung transplant recipients. A diagnostic randomized trial. JHLT Open (2025) 8:100262. 10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100262
124.
LoorKCulebrasMSansanoIÁlvarezASacanellJGarcía-de-AciluMet alLung allograft transbronchial cryobiopsy for critical ventilated patients: a randomised trial. Eur Respir J (2023) 61(1):2102354. 10.1183/13993003.02354-2021
125.
HalloranKVosRSnellGGreenlandJR. The lung transplant endobronchial biopsy: a forgotten specimen comes of age. J Heart Lung Transpl (2025) 44(2):293–7. 10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.019
126.
MohantyRPMoghbeliKSingerJPCalabreseDRHaysSRIasellaCet alSmall airway brush gene expression predicts chronic lung allograft dysfunction and mortality. J Heart Lung Transpl (2024) 43(11):1820–32. 10.1016/j.healun.2024.07.010
127.
IasellaCJHojiAPopescuIWeiJSnyderMEZhangYet alType-1 immunity and endogenous immune regulators predominate in the airway transcriptome during chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Am J Transpl (2021) 21(6):2145–60. 10.1111/ajt.16360
128.
VosRVan HerckA. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and chronic lung allograft dysfunction: does evading an iceberg prevent the ship from sinking?Eur Respir J (2021) 58(1):2100041. 10.1183/13993003.00041-2021
129.
GirgisREReichenspurnerHRobbinsRCReitzBATheodoreJ. The utility of annual surveillance bronchoscopy in heart-lung transplant recipients. Transplantation (1995) 60(12):1458–61. 10.1097/00007890-199560120-00015
130.
LehtoJTKoskinenPKAnttilaVJLautenschlagerILemströmKSipponenJet alBronchoscopy in the diagnosis and surveillance of respiratory infections in lung and heart-lung transplant recipients. Transpl Int (2005) 18(5):562–71. 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00089.x
131.
VandermeulenEVerledenSERuttensDMoelantsEMortierASomersJet alBAL neutrophilia in azithromycin-treated lung transplant recipients: clinical significance. Transpl Immunol (2015) 33(1):37–44. 10.1016/j.trim.2015.07.001
132.
NeurohrCHuppmannPSamweberBLeuschnerSZimmermannGLeuchteHet alPrognostic value of bronchoalveolar lavage neutrophilia in stable lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl (2009) 28(5):468–74. 10.1016/j.healun.2009.01.014
133.
VerledenSERuttensDVandermeulenEBellonHDubbeldamADe WeverWet alPredictors of survival in restrictive chronic lung allograft dysfunction after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2016) 35(9):1078–84. 10.1016/j.healun.2016.03.022
134.
VerledenSERuttensDVandermeulenEvan RaemdonckDEVanaudenaerdeBMVerledenGMet alElevated bronchoalveolar lavage eosinophilia correlates with poor outcome after lung transplantation. Transplantation (2014) 97(1):83–9. 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a6bae2
135.
ToddJLWeberJMKellyFLNeelyMLMulderHFrankelCWet alBAL fluid eosinophilia associates with chronic lung allograft dysfunction risk: a multicenter study. Chest (2023) 164(3):670–81. 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.033
136.
YangJYCVerledenSEZarinsefatAVanaudenaerdeBMVosRVerledenGMet alCell-free DNA and CXCL10 derived from bronchoalveolar lavage predict lung transplant survival. J Clin Med (2019) 8(2):241. 10.3390/jcm8020241
137.
ShinoMYWeigtSSLiNDerhovanessianASayahDMSaggarRet alThe prognostic importance of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid CXCL9 during minimal acute rejection on the risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Am J Transpl (2018) 18(1):136–44. 10.1111/ajt.14397
138.
GregsonALHojiAInjeanPPoynterSTBrionesCPalchevskiyVet alAltered exosomal RNA profiles in bronchoalveolar lavage from lung transplants with acute rejection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2015) 192(12):1490–503. 10.1164/rccm.201503-0558OC
139.
CrosslandREBoltonSJFisherAJ. The role of extracellular vesicles in chronic lung allograft dysfunction and response to extracorporeal photopheresis. JHLT Open (2025) 9:100322. 10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100322
140.
HalloranKMackovaMParkesMDHirjiAWeinkaufJTimofteILet alThe molecular features of chronic lung allograft dysfunction in lung transplant airway mucosa. J Heart Lung Transpl (2022) 41(12):1689–99. 10.1016/j.healun.2022.08.014
141.
HalloranKParkesMDTimofteISnellGWestallGHavlinJet alMolecular T-cell‒mediated rejection in transbronchial and mucosal lung transplant biopsies is associated with future risk of graft loss. J Heart Lung Transpl (2020) 39(12):1327–37. 10.1016/j.healun.2020.08.013
142.
GauthierPTMackovaMHirjiAWeinkaufJTimofteILSnellGIet alDefining a natural killer cell-enriched molecular rejection-like state in lung transplant transbronchial biopsies. Am J Transpl (2023) 23(12):1922–38. 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.06.003
143.
ZajacovaAMackovaMHalloranKGauthierPBalkoJGuneyMet alTreatment responses in histologic versus molecular diagnoses of lung rejection. Transpl Int (2024) 37:12847. 10.3389/ti.2024.12847
144.
MehlmanYValledorAFMoellerCRubinsteinGLotanDRahmanSet alThe utilization of molecular microscope in management of heart transplant recipients in the era of noninvasive monitoring. Clin Transpl (2023) 37(12):e15131. 10.1111/ctr.15131
145.
NaesensMRoufosseCHaasMLefaucheurCMannonRBAdamBAet alThe banff 2022 kidney meeting report: reappraisal of microvascular inflammation and the role of biopsy-based transcript diagnostics. Am J Transpl (2024) 24(3):338–49. 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.10.016
146.
WeigtSSWangXPalchevskiyVLiXPatelNRossDJet alUsefulness of gene expression profiling of bronchoalveolar lavage cells in acute lung allograft rejection. J Heart Lung Transpl (2019) 38(8):845–55. 10.1016/j.healun.2019.05.001
147.
NelsonJAlveyNBowmanLSchulteJSegoviaMCMcDermottJet alConsensus recommendations for use of maintenance immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: endorsed by the American college of clinical pharmacy, American society of transplantation, and international society for heart and lung transplantation: an executive summary. Pharmacotherapy (2022) 42(8):594–8. 10.1002/phar.2718
148.
KatadaYNakagawaSItoharaKSuzukiTKatoREndoHet alAssociation between time in therapeutic range of tacrolimus blood concentration and acute rejection within the first three months after lung transplantation. J Pharm Health Care Sci (2022) 8(1):25. 10.1186/s40780-022-00256-9
149.
MabasaVHEnsomMH. The role of therapeutic monitoring of everolimus in solid organ transplantation. Ther Drug Monit (2005) 27(5):666–76. 10.1097/01.ftd.0000175911.70172.2e
150.
StaatzCETettSE. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet (2007) 46(1):13–58. 10.2165/00003088-200746010-00002
151.
GregoorPJde SévauxRGHenéRJHesseCJHilbrandsLBVosPet alEffect of cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid trough levels in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation (1999) 68(10):1603–6. 10.1097/00007890-199911270-00028
152.
MathewBSMathewSKAruldhasBWPrabhaRGangadharanNDavidVGet alAnalytical and clinical validation of dried blood spot and volumetric absorptive microsampling for measurement of tacrolimus and creatinine after renal transplantation. Clin Biochem (2022) 105-106:25–34. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2022.04.014
153.
ZwartTCGokoelSRMvan der BoogPJMde FijterJWKweekelDMSwenJJet alTherapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in outpatient renal transplant recipients using a volumetric dried blood spot sampling device. Br J Clin Pharmacol (2018) 84(12):2889–902. 10.1111/bcp.13755
154.
ForierBSchaeversVSprietIQuintensCDesmetSBosSet alOutpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in non-cystic fibrosis lung transplant recipients: characteristics, efficacy and safety. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis (2025) 44(6):1481–90. 10.1007/s10096-024-04921-9
155.
DvořáčkováEMichaličkováDPetrusJKlapkováEDutkováAKotowskiTet alPopulation pharmacokinetics and dose optimization of valganciclovir and ganciclovir in lung transplant recipients. Med Princ Pract (2025) 35:169–80. 10.1159/000548942
156.
DvorackovaESimaMVyskocilovaKKotowskiTDunovskáKKlapkovaEet alPopulation pharmacokinetics and covariate-based dosing individualization of voriconazole in lung transplant recipients. J Chemother (2024) 36(1):35–44. 10.1080/1120009X.2023.2219590
157.
DvořáčkováEŠímaMZajacováAVyskočilováKKotowskiTDunovskáKet alDosing optimization of posaconazole in lung-transplant recipients based on population pharmacokinetic model. Antibiotics (Basel) (2023) 12(9):1399. 10.3390/antibiotics12091399
158.
LevineDJGlanvilleARAboyounCBelperioJBendenCBerryGJet alAntibody-mediated rejection of the lung: a consensus report of the international society for heart and lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transpl (2016) 35(4):397–406. 10.1016/j.healun.2016.01.1223
159.
European Federation for Immunogenetics. Standards for histocompatibility and immunogenetics testing. Strasbourg: European Federation for Immunogenetics (EFI) (2024).
160.
LefaucheurCLouisKMorrisABTaupinJLNickersonPTamburARet alClinical recommendations for posttransplant assessment of anti-HLA (human leukocyte antigen) donor-specific antibodies: a sensitization in transplantation: assessment of risk consensus document. Am J Transpl (2023) 23(1):115–32. 10.1016/j.ajt.2022.11.013
161.
CourtwrightAMCaoSWoodIMallidiHRKawasawaJMoniodisAet alClinical outcomes of lung transplantation in the presence of donor-specific antibodies. Ann Am Thorac Soc (2019) 16(9):1131–7. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201812-869OC
162.
IusFMüllerCSommerWVerboomMHallenslebenMSalmanJet alSix-year experience with treatment of early donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies in pediatric lung transplantation using a human immunoglobulin-based protocol. Pediatr Pulmonol (2020) 55(3):754–64. 10.1002/ppul.24639
163.
SenevAEmondsMPVan SandtVLerutECoemansMSprangersBet alClinical importance of extended second field high-resolution HLA genotyping for kidney transplantation. Am J Transpl (2020) 20(12):3367–78. 10.1111/ajt.15938
164.
XuQElrefaeiMTaupinJLHitchmanKMKHihoSGareauAJet alChronic lung allograft dysfunction is associated with an increased number of non-HLA antibodies. J Heart Lung Transpl (2024) 43(4):663–72. 10.1016/j.healun.2023.12.007
165.
PhilogeneMCTchoukinaIGimferrerI. Challenges and opportunities in bringing non-HLA antibody testing for post-transplant monitoring. Front Transpl (2025) 4:1594241. 10.3389/frtra.2025.1594241
166.
TagueLKScozziDWallendorfMGageBFKrupnickASKreiselDet alLung transplant outcomes are influenced by severity of neutropenia and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Am J Transpl (2020) 20(1):250–61. 10.1111/ajt.15581
167.
WeyEKibblerC. Infections associated with neutropenia and transplantation. Antibiot Chemother (2010) 21.
168.
HeXLuoZHanYYuJFangSGuoL. Correlation analysis of the peripheral blood lymphocyte count and occurrence of pneumonia after lung transplantation. Transpl Immunol (2023) 78:101822. 10.1016/j.trim.2023.101822
169.
CoiffardBPelardyMLoundouADNicolino-BrunetCThomasPAPapazianLet alEffect of immunosuppression on target blood immune cells within 1 year after lung transplantation: influence of age on T lymphocytes. Ann Transpl (2018) 23:11–24. 10.12659/aot.906372
170.
KaesJVan der BorghtEVanstapelAVan HerckASacreasAHeiglTet alPeripheral blood eosinophilia is associated with poor outcome post-lung transplantation. Cells (2020) 9(11):2516. 10.3390/cells9112516
171.
BarryMChandraSHymesKB. Cytopenias in transplant patients. In: SafdarA, editor. Principles and practice of transplant infectious diseases. New York, NY: Springer (2019). p. 199–207.
172.
Phillips-HoulbracqMMalHCottinVGauvainCBeierFSicre de FontbruneFet alDeterminants of survival after lung transplantation in telomerase-related gene mutation carriers: a retrospective cohort. Am J Transpl (2022) 22(4):1236–44. 10.1111/ajt.16893
173.
BorieRKannengiesserCHirschiSLe PavecJMalHBergotEet alSevere hematologic complications after lung transplantation in patients with telomerase complex mutations. J Heart Lung Transpl (2015) 34(4):538–46. 10.1016/j.healun.2014.11.010
174.
RosseelsWGodinasLJallahPVosRDupontLKuypersDet alThrombotic microangiopathy: a devastating complication after lung transplantation. Transpl Direct (2025) 11(4):e1758. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001758
175.
ZajacovaAAlkhouriMFerraoGGuneyMRezacDVyskocilovaKet alEarly post-lung transplant cell-free DNA levels are associated with baseline lung allograft dysfunction. Transpl Immunol (2025) 92:102245. 10.1016/j.trim.2025.102245
176.
SorbiniMTogliattoGMioliFSimonatoEMarroMCappuccioMet alValidation of a simple, rapid, and cost-effective method for acute rejection monitoring in lung transplant recipients. Transpl Int (2022) 35:10546. 10.3389/ti.2022.10546
177.
Nogueiras-ÁlvarezRMora-CuestaVMCifrián-MartínezJMde Cos-CossíoMÁGarcía-SáizMDM. Calcineurin inhibitors' impact on cardiovascular and renal function, a descriptive study in lung transplant recipients from the north of Spain. Sci Rep (2022) 12(1):21207. 10.1038/s41598-022-25445-2
178.
FarrellCLMianoTAGriffithsSChristieJDDiamondJMShashatyMGS. Early post-lung transplant calcineurin inhibitor management varies widely: an international survey. Clin Transpl (2022) 36(2):e14510. 10.1111/ctr.14510
179.
HyznyEJChanEGMorrellMHaranoTSanchezPG. A review of liver dysfunction in the lung transplant patient. Clin Transpl (2021) 35(8):e14344. 10.1111/ctr.14344
180.
LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury. Bethesda (MD): National institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases (2012).
181.
SharifAChakkeraHde VriesAPJEllerKGuthoffMHallerMCet alInternational consensus on post-transplantation diabetes mellitus. Nephrol Dial Transpl (2024) 39(3):531–49. 10.1093/ndt/gfad258
182.
AgarwalAPrasadGV. Post-transplant dyslipidemia: mechanisms, diagnosis and management. World J Transpl (2016) 6(1):125–34. 10.5500/wjt.v6.i1.125
183.
WengerUCottiniSRNollGArndtSStehbergerPAKlinzingSet alPretransplant dyslipidaemia determines outcome in lung transplant recipients. Lipids Health Dis (2013) 12:53. 10.1186/1476-511X-12-53
184.
KiMSKimNEWooAKimSYKimYSKimHEet alPost-transplant vitamin D deficiency in lung transplant recipients: impact on outcomes and prognosis. Transpl Int (2024) 37:13313. 10.3389/ti.2024.13313
185.
RakusaMVrtovecBPoglajenGJanezAJensterleM. Endocrine disorders after heart transplantation: national cohort study. BMC Endocr Disord (2020) 20(1):54. 10.1186/s12902-020-0533-6
186.
Jelić PranjićIOrlićLCarevićAVrdoljak MargetaTŠimićJBubićI. Exploring thyroid function after kidney transplantation: the complex interplay unacknowledged in post-transplant care. J Clin Med (2024) 13(12):3559. 10.3390/jcm13123559
187.
MawhorterSYamaniMH. Hypogammaglobulinemia and infection risk in solid organ transplant recipients. Curr Opin Organ Transpl (2008) 13(6):581–5. 10.1097/MOT.0b013e3283186bbc
188.
Fernández-RuizMKumarDHumarA. Clinical immune-monitoring strategies for predicting infection risk in solid organ transplantation. Clin Transl Immunol (2014) 3(2):e12. 10.1038/cti.2014.3
189.
CalarotaSAChiesaADe SilvestriAMorosiniMOggionniTMaronePet alT-lymphocyte subsets in lung transplant recipients: association between nadir CD4 T-cell count and viral infections after transplantation. J Clin Virol (2015) 69:110–6. 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.06.078
190.
WestallGPBrooksAGKotsimbosT. CD8+ T-cell maturation following lung transplantation: the differential impact of CMV and acute rejection. Transpl Immunol (2007) 18(2):186–92. 10.1016/j.trim.2007.07.002
191.
KottonCNKumarDManuelOChouSHaydenRTDanziger-IsakovLet alThe fourth international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation (2025) 109(7):1066–110. 10.1097/TP.0000000000005374
192.
PiloniDGabantiEMorosiniMCassinelliGFrangipaneVZavaglioFet alFifteen-year surveillance of LTR receiving pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection: prevention of CMV disease and incidence of CLAD. Microorganisms (2022) 10(12):2339. 10.3390/microorganisms10122339
193.
ArisRMMaiaDMNeuringerIPGottKKileySGertisKet alPost-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder in the epstein-barr virus-naïve lung transplant recipient. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1996) 154(6 Pt 1):1712–7. 10.1164/ajrccm.154.6.8970360
194.
San-JuanRDe DiosBNavarroDGarcía-ReyneALumbrerasCBravoDet alEpstein-barr virus DNAemia is an early surrogate marker of the net state of immunosuppresion in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplantation (2013) 95(5):688–93. 10.1097/TP.0b013e31827a4bd6
195.
BartenMJZuckermannA. BK virus: a cause for concern in thoracic transplantation?Ann Transpl (2018) 23:310–21. 10.12659/AOT.908429
196.
CrowhurstTNolanJFaullRHolmesMHolmes-LiewCL. BK virus-associated nephropathy in a lung transplant patient: case report and literature review. BMC Infect Dis (2020) 20(1):600. 10.1186/s12879-020-05292-0
197.
NikolovaAAgbor-EnohSBosSCrespo-LeiroMEnsmingerSJimenez-BlancoMet alEuropean society for organ transplantation (ESOT) consensus statement on the use of non-invasive biomarkers for cardiothoracic transplant rejection surveillance. Transpl Int (2024) 37:12445. 10.3389/ti.2024.12445
198.
KellerMSunJMutebiCShahPLevineDAryalSet alDonor-derived cell-free DNA as a composite marker of acute lung allograft dysfunction in clinical care. J Heart Lung Transpl (2022) 41(4):458–66. 10.1016/j.healun.2021.12.009
199.
KellerMRossDBhoradeSAgborS. Study design for a randomized control trial of lung allograft monitoring with blood donor-derived cell-free DNA assessments (LAMBDA 001). J Heart Lung Transpl (2023) 42(4):S509. 10.1016/j.healun.2023.02.1398
200.
GottliebJReussAMayerKWeideKSchade-BrittingerCHoyerSet alViral load-guided immunosuppression after lung transplantation (VIGILung)-study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials (2021) 22(1):48. 10.1186/s13063-020-04985-w
201.
JakschPGörzerIPuchhammer-StöcklEBondG. Integrated immunologic monitoring in solid organ transplantation: the road toward torque teno virus-guided immunosuppression. Transplantation (2022) 106(10):1940–51. 10.1097/TP.0000000000004153
202.
NordMSchubertKCasselTNAnderssonORiiseGC. Decreased serum and bronchoalveolar lavage levels of clara cell secretory protein (CC16) is associated with bronchiolitis Obliterans syndrome and airway neutrophilia in lung transplant recipients. Transplantation (2002) 73(8):1264–9. 10.1097/00007890-200204270-00013
203.
BansalSItabashiYPerincheriSPoulsonCBharatASmithMAet alThe role of miRNA-155 in the immunopathogenesis of obliterative airway disease in mice induced by circulating exosomes from human lung transplant recipients with chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Cell Immunol (2020) 355:104172. 10.1016/j.cellimm.2020.104172
204.
NordénRMagnussonJLundinATangKWNilssonSLindhMet alQuantification of torque teno virus and epstein-barr virus is of limited value for predicting the net state of immunosuppression after lung transplantation. Open Forum Infect Dis (2018) 5(4):ofy050. 10.1093/ofid/ofy050
Summary
Keywords
follow-up, graft survival, lung transplantation, outcome, surveillance
Citation
Saez-Gimenez B, Magnusson JM and Zajacova A (2026) Post–lung transplant surveillance in 2026: current practice, variability, and the need for standardization. Transpl. Int. 39:16295. doi: 10.3389/ti.2026.16295
Received
23 January 2026
Revised
27 March 2026
Accepted
27 April 2026
Published
13 May 2026
Volume
39 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Saez-Gimenez, Magnusson and Zajacova.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andrea Zajacova, andrea.zajacova@kuleuven.be
ORCID: Berta Saez-Gimenez, orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-728X; Jesper Magnusson, orcid.org/0000-0002-5630-0155; Andrea Zajacova, orcid.org/0000-0002-9691-2500
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.