Clinical and experimental aspects of preservation injury in liver grafts

DeOliveira, Michelle L.; McCormack, Lucas; Clavien, Pierre‐Alain

doi:10.1097/01.mot.0000227835.98957.65

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The donor groups included in this study were representative in terms of the general demographic characteristics currently applied for liver graft donors 22. Certain donor characteristics potentially affect graft function or cause graft preservation injuries 5–7, 23. We found no significant differences in our 2 series with respect to the presence or absence of these risk factors, which could have influenced and introduced bias into the study results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Comparative prospective study of two liver graft preservation solutions: University of Wisconsin and Celsior

López‐Andújar¹,

Deusa²,

Montalvá³

et al. 2009

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University of Wisconsin solution (UWS) is the gold standard for graft preservation. Celsior solution (CS) is a new solution not as yet widely used in liver grafts. The aim of this study was to compare the liver function of transplanted grafts stored in these 2 preservation solutions. The primary endpoints were the rates of primary nonfunction (PNF) and primary dysfunction (PDF). We performed a prospective and pseudorandomized study that included 196 patients (representing 104 and 92 livers preserved in UWS and CS, respectively) at La Fe University Hospital (Valencia, Spain) between March 2003 and May 2005. PNF and PDF rates, liver function laboratory parameters, postoperative bleeding, vascular and biliary complications, and patient and graft survival at 3 years were compared for the 2 groups. The 2 groups were similar in terms of donor variables, recipient variables, and surgical techniques. The PNF rates were 2.2% and 1.9% in the CS and UWS groups, respectively (P ϭ not significant), and the PDF rates were 15.2% and 15.5% in the CS and UWS groups, respectively (P ϭ not significant). There were no significant differences in the laboratory parameters for the 2 groups, except for alanine aminotransferase levels in month 3, which were lower in the CS group (P ϭ 0.01). No significant differences were observed in terms of complications. Three-year patient and graft survival rates were as follows for years 1, 2, and 3: 83%, 80%, and 76% (patient) and 80%, 77%, and 73% (graft) for the UWS group and 83%, 77%, and 70% (patient) and 81%, 73%, and 67% (graft) for the CS group (P ϭ not significant). In conclusion, this study shows that CS is as effective as UWS in liver preservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%