Lung transplantation is a key therapeutic approach for patients with end-stage lung diseases. Although its clinical outcomes have significantly improved, multidimensional injuries sustained by donor lungs during procurement, preservation, and transplantation remain major challenges affecting graft survival and long-term prognosis. This article proposes the "Guangzhou Classification" for full-course management of donor lung injury, characterized by spatiotemporal dynamics. Based on the progression of disease stages, donor lung injuries are systematically divided into three types: primary injuries (including donor ICU-related lung injury, pathogen colonization, and cold ischemia injury), secondary injuries (such as ventilator-induced lung injury after transplantation, ischemia-reperfusion inflammatory storm, and early rejection), and accompanying injuries (organ toxicity caused by accumulation of postoperative sedatives, analgesics, and vasoactive drugs). Drawing on previous studies and the clinical experience of our center, this paper elaborates the temporal evolution, key risk factors, and prevention and treatment strategies of each injury category, and discusses future research directions. By targeting critical injury factors at each stage, this classification aims to optimize both short-term and long-term outcomes of lung transplantation.

Lung transplantation is a key therapeutic approach for patients with end-stage lung diseases. Although its clinical outcomes have significantly improved, multidimensional injuries sustained by donor lungs during procurement, preservation, and transplantation remain major challenges affecting graft survival and long-term prognosis. This article proposes the "Guangzhou Classification" for full-course management of donor lung injury, characterized by spatiotemporal dynamics. Based on the progression of disease stages, donor lung injuries are systematically divided into three types: primary injuries (including donor ICU-related lung injury, pathogen colonization, and cold ischemia injury), secondary injuries (such as ventilator-induced lung injury after transplantation, ischemia-reperfusion inflammatory storm, and early rejection), and accompanying injuries (organ toxicity caused by accumulation of postoperative sedatives, analgesics, and vasoactive drugs). Drawing on previous studies and the clinical experience of our center, this paper elaborates the temporal evolution, key risk factors, and prevention and treatment strategies of each injury category, and discusses future research directions. By targeting critical injury factors at each stage, this classification aims to optimize both short-term and long-term outcomes of lung transplantation.

Objective    To compare the effects of transthoracic device closure and traditional surgical repair on atrial septal defect systemically. Methods    A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Database up to July 31, 2018 to identify trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality was assessed and data of included articles were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Results    Thirty studies were identified, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 27 cohort studies involving 3 321 patients. For success rate, the transthoracic closure group was lower than that in the surgical repair group (CCT, OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.69, P=0.003). There was no statistical difference in mortality between the two groups (CCT, OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.52, P=0.19). Postoperative complication occurred less frequently in the transthoracic closure group than that in the surgical repair group (RCT, OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.77,  P=0.01; CCT, OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.42, P<0.000 01). The risk of postoperative arrhythmia in the transthoracic closure group was lower than that in the surgical repair group (CCT, OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.90, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative residual shunt in postoperative one month (CCT, OR=4.52, 95%CI 0.45 to 45.82, P=0.20) and in postoperative one year (CCT, OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.29 to 3.68, P=0.97) between the two groups. Although the duration of operation (RCT MD=–55.90, 95%CI –58.69 to –53.11, P<0.000 01; CCT MD=–71.68, 95%CI -– 79.70 to –63.66, P<0.000 01), hospital stay (CCT, MD=–3.31, 95%CI –4.16, –2.46, P<0.000 01) and ICU stay(CCT, MD=–10.15, 95%CI –14.38 to –5.91, P<0.000 01), mechanical ventilation (CCT, MD=–228.68, 95%CI –247.60 to – 209.77, P<0.000 01) in the transthoracic closure group were lower than those in the traditional surgical repair group, the transthoracic closure costed more than traditional surgical repair during being in the hospital (CCT, MD=1 221.42, 95%CI 1 124.70 to 1 318.14, P<0.000 01). Conclusion    Compared with traditional surgical repair, the transthoracic closure reduces the hospital stay, shortens the length of ICU stay and the duration of ventilator assisted ventilation, while has less postoperative complications. It is safe and reliable for patients with ASD within the scope of indication.