2009
DOI: 10.1056/nejmc090170
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation

Abstract: 1 report on their trial of machine perfusion versus static storage of kidneys from deceased donors. The benefit of machine perfusion 2 is probably that it ensures a uniform distribution of preservation fluid throughout the organ, which is better than a single flush.Perhaps this benefit can be illustrated best by our experience with a series of 38 poorly preserved kidneys obtained at our center from 19 donors after cardiac death, all of whom had undergone femoral cannulation and were Maastricht category II or I… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To estimate the impact of UA level and hyperuricemia on long-term transplant outcomes, Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust for confounding factors. In accordance with our expectation, hyperuricemia was found to be a significant predictor for graft loss (defined as allograft failure and death) during the study period(hazard ratio [ 36 ] = 2.17, 95% confidential interval[CI]:1.27–3.70, P = 0.004) as illustrated in Fig 4 . However, it was not valid(HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.73–3.44, P = 0.241) after adjustment for age, gender, BMI, HLA mismatch, introduction regimen, immunosuppressive agent protocol, diabetic mellitus, dialysis type, DGF, infection and acute rejection episode.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…To estimate the impact of UA level and hyperuricemia on long-term transplant outcomes, Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust for confounding factors. In accordance with our expectation, hyperuricemia was found to be a significant predictor for graft loss (defined as allograft failure and death) during the study period(hazard ratio [ 36 ] = 2.17, 95% confidential interval[CI]:1.27–3.70, P = 0.004) as illustrated in Fig 4 . However, it was not valid(HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.73–3.44, P = 0.241) after adjustment for age, gender, BMI, HLA mismatch, introduction regimen, immunosuppressive agent protocol, diabetic mellitus, dialysis type, DGF, infection and acute rejection episode.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%