Original Article
Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation
N Engl J Med 2009; 360:7-19January 1, 2009
- Abstract
Background
Static cold storage is generally used to preserve kidney allografts from deceased donors. Hypothermic machine perfusion may improve outcomes after transplantation, but few sufficiently powered prospective studies have addressed this possibility.
Methods
In this international randomized, controlled trial, we randomly assigned one kidney from 336 consecutive deceased donors to machine perfusion and the other to cold storage. All 672 recipients were followed for 1 year. The primary end point was delayed graft function (requiring dialysis in the first week after transplantation). Secondary end points were the duration of delayed graft function, delayed graft function defined by the rate of the decrease in the serum creatinine level, primary nonfunction, the serum creatinine level and clearance, acute rejection, toxicity of the calcineurin inhibitor, the length of hospital stay, and allograft and patient survival.
Results
Machine perfusion significantly reduced the risk of delayed graft function. Delayed graft function developed in 70 patients in the machine-perfusion group versus 89 in the cold-storage group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P=0.01). Machine perfusion also significantly improved the rate of the decrease in the serum creatinine level and reduced the duration of delayed graft function. Machine perfusion was associated with lower serum creatinine levels during the first 2 weeks after transplantation and a reduced risk of graft failure (hazard ratio, 0.52; P=0.03). One-year allograft survival was superior in the machine-perfusion group (94% vs. 90%, P=0.04). No significant differences were observed for the other secondary end points. No serious adverse events were directly attributable to machine perfusion.
Conclusions
Hypothermic machine perfusion was associated with a reduced risk of delayed graft function and improved graft survival in the first year after transplantation. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN83876362.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment, Assignment of Kidney Pairs to Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage, Follow-up, and Assessment.Figure 2
Forest Plot of the Treatment Effect in Prespecified Subgroup Analyses.Article Activity
- Article
Two different forms of organ preservation — static cold storage and hypothermic machine perfusion — are used clinically for renal allografts obtained from deceased donors. In static cold storage, the kidney is flushed, cooled with one of several cold preservation solutions, and transported on ice. In hypothermic machine perfusion, after an initial washout of blood, the kidney is connected to a perfusion device, and a solution is pumped continuously through the renal vasculature at temperatures between 1 and 10°C.1 The typical deceased kidney donor today is older and has been exposed to more concomitant disease than donors were several decades ago; these factors may have a detrimental effect on allograft quality.2,3 In addition, the use of organs received from donors after cardiocirculatory death is increasing in most countries.4 Such allografts are known to have significantly higher rates of delayed graft function.4,5 Evidence suggests that organs that do not function immediately after transplantation have an increased risk of acute rejection, and allograft survival may be inferior.6,7 In addition, delayed graft function increases the costs of kidney transplantation.8,9 Retrospective studies have suggested that machine perfusion could result in a better short-term outcome, with lower rates of delayed graft function after transplantation of kidneys from all types of deceased donors.9-11 Therefore, interest in machine perfusion is increasing. Our international randomized, controlled trial compared machine perfusion with cold-storage preservation in deceased-donor kidney transplantation with a primary end point of delayed graft function.
Methods
Study Design
This investigator-driven, international randomized, controlled study included the Netherlands, Belgium, and the federal state of North Rhine–Westphalia in Germany. All consecutive deceased-donor kidney pairs identified in these regions that met the initial inclusion criteria were eligible for randomization by Eurotransplant, the international organ-exchange organization of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and Slovenia (Croatia became a member after the present study was completed). Since we aimed to include the whole spectrum of deceased donors, no previous selection of donor types to be included was made. Thus, the study reflects the effect of machine perfusion as compared with cold storage in everyday practice within an international organ-exchange organization. From each donor, one kidney was randomly assigned to machine perfusion and the contralateral organ to cold storage. The organ could be transplanted into any recipient within the Eurotransplant region.12 Approval for the study was obtained from the ethics review boards in each trial region and from the Eurotransplant Ethical Advisory Committee and Kidney Advisory Committee. Since the random assignment of kidneys to a preservation method was limited to organs isolated before transplantation, no informed consent from recipients was required for this intervention.
An independent scientific steering committee composed of clinicians and scientists from each trial region was solely responsible for the design, conduct, data analysis, and manuscript preparation for this study.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Organ donors had to be 16 years of age or older. Only kidney pairs from deceased donors were included in the study, either from donation after brain death or donation after cardiocirculatory death. The category for donors without a heartbeat had to be Maastricht category III (awaiting cardiocirculatory death after withdrawal of treatment) or IV (cardiocirculatory death in a brain-dead donor).13 Kidney pairs were included only if both organs were actually transplanted into two different recipients. If one kidney was transplanted into the same recipient together with another organ, this kidney pair was excluded. The only exclusion criterion for recipients was the death of the patient in the first week after transplantation, since a follow-up of at least 1 week was required to determine the primary end point.
Randomization
A randomization scheme based on permuted blocks within regions was used with separate randomization lists for each trial region. A detailed description of the randomization process is available in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Surgical teams were allowed to switch preservation methods only if the kidney assigned to machine perfusion had an aortic patch that was too small or if it had too many renal arteries for a reliable connection to the machine-perfusion device; this switch in preservation methods changed the initial randomization.
Logistics
In each trial region, a team of trained perfusionists was on hand 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to respond when a donor became available. The perfusionists transported the machine-perfusion device to the donor hospital and assisted donor surgeons with connecting one kidney to the machine. No changes were made to the existing Eurotransplant rules for organ allocation or to transportation protocols. Kidneys that underwent machine perfusion as well as those that were preserved with cold storage were transported to their respective recipient center without any monitoring.
Hypothermic Machine Perfusion
LifePort Kidney Transporter machines (Organ Recovery Systems) were used for perfusion, delivering a pulsatile flow of University of Wisconsin machine preservation solution (Kidney Preservation Solution-1)14 at 1 to 8°C, with no changes in perfusion settings throughout the preservation period. The systolic perfusion pressure was fixed at 30 mm Hg, and the kidneys underwent machine perfusion from organ procurement until transplantation. To prevent bias in clinical decisions about transplanting or discarding an organ, intravascular resistance and flow readings were never revealed to the transplantation team.
Cold Storage
No changes were made to the standard cold-storage protocols. After an initial vascular washout, kidneys were submerged in the preservation solution and stored on melting ice, according to the established Eurotransplant routine.
Data Collection
Follow-up data were provided by each participating transplantation center through a secure online database hosted by Eurotransplant. A random sample of 10% of all patients was audited externally; no relevant irregularities were found.
Study End Points
The primary end point was delayed graft function, defined as the requirement for dialysis during the first week after transplantation. The secondary end points were the duration of delayed graft function, primary nonfunction (permanent lack of function of the allograft from the time of transplantation), the area under the curve of the daily serum creatinine level at days 1 to 14, the creatinine clearance at day 14, biopsy-proven acute rejection, toxicity of the calcineurin inhibitor, the length of the recipient's hospital stay, and survival of the graft and patient up to 1 year after transplantation. Data on graft survival were censored at the time of death in patients who died with a functioning allograft. In addition to the primary end point, which was defined in terms of the requirement for dialysis after transplantation, we also examined delayed graft function as a secondary end point. This secondary end point, functional delayed graft function, was defined in terms of the absence of a decrease in the serum creatinine level of at least 10% per day for at least 3 consecutive days in the first week after transplantation, not including patients in whom acute rejection, toxicity of the calcineurin inhibitor, or both developed within the first week.15 All end points described above were prespecified in the study protocol, except primary nonfunction, which was added post hoc.
Statistical Analysis
This study was powered to detect a reduction in delayed graft function of at least 10%, based on a presumed incidence of 35% among recipients of kidneys that had been preserved by means of cold storage. With a statistical power of 0.8 and a one-sided type I error of 0.05, the minimum required sample size was 300 kidney pairs; this is equivalent to the required sample size for a logistic-regression analysis with a two-sided type I error of 0.05 and similar power.16 The primary analysis of the primary end point — delayed graft function — consisted of a logistic-regression model, which examined whether machine perfusion as compared with cold-storage preservation, in the context of other relevant factors, influenced the risk of delayed graft function.7,17 Covariates for this model (see the Supplementary Appendix) were prespecified in the study protocol and were based on relevant literature.18,19 The final model was determined by entering all covariates together in the analysis, with a built-in normal gamma frailty term for the donor to account for the paired study design.20 For end-point variables, univariate differences between the groups were assessed with the use of McNemar's test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For demographic variables, differences were assessed with the use of Fisher's exact test or the Mann–Whitney test. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to analyze graft and patient survival. Differences between survival curves were determined with the use of log-rank tests. A Cox proportional-hazards model was applied to examine which variables significantly influenced the risk of graft failure.21 To construct this model, an approach similar to the logistic-regression model for delayed graft function was followed.
We performed prespecified subgroup analyses to determine the treatment effect on the primary end point according to donation after cardiocirculatory death versus donation after brain death and according to expanded-criteria donation versus standard-criteria donation.22 Expanded-criteria donation was defined as a donor age of 60 years or more or a donor age between 50 and 60 years, with at least two of the following additional donor characteristics: history of hypertension, death due to a cerebrovascular cause, and a serum creatinine level of more than 132 μmol per liter (1.5 mg per deciliter) before removal of the kidney.23
All reported P values are two-sided and not adjusted for multiple testing. A P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance. Analyses were conducted with the use of the SPSS, SAS, and R software packages and were based on all organ pairs that met the inclusion criteria.
No interim analyses of study end points were carried out. At regular intervals, confidential safety analyses were performed by the trial safety board, which compared the reported rates of adverse events between the two trial groups. The sponsor was not involved in the conduct of the study, the analysis or storage of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript. The scientific steering committee vouches for the accuracy and completeness of the data and analyses.
Results
From November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006, there were 654 potential deceased kidney donors 16 years of age or older in the three trial regions. Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment, Assignment of Kidney Pairs to Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage, Follow-up, and Assessment. shows a flow diagram of the 336 kidney pairs (672 recipients) included in our analysis. In 25 donors (4.6%), preservation methods were switched because of the aberrant vascular anatomy of the kidney assigned to machine perfusion. Vascular anomalies were not observed to have a significant effect on delayed graft function. Aberrant vascular anatomy did not significantly increase the risk of graft failure, and the addition of this factor to the Cox model had no effect on the hazard ratio for graft failure associated with machine perfusion versus cold storage (see the Supplementary Appendix).The 20 “other reasons for exclusion” of the kidney pairs (Figure 1) were as follows: 12 adverse events that occurred during the donor procedure, 5 cases in which the donor had one kidney, 2 cases in which the consent for kidney donation was withdrawn just before procurement, and 1 procedure involving a donor after cardiocirculatory death that was planned as a Maastricht category III donation but was changed to a Maastricht category II donation (cardiocirculatory death after unsuccessful resuscitation).
Study Patients
Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of Donors, Recipients, and Transplants and Univariate Differences between the Groups. summarizes the characteristics of the study groups. All kidneys donated after cardiocirculatory death were in Maastricht category III, as defined earlier. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to relevant baseline characteristics.Delayed Graft Function
Delayed graft function occurred in 70 recipients in the machine-perfusion group (20.8%) as compared with 89 patients in the cold-storage group (26.5%). Table 2Table 2
Multivariate Analysis of the Risk of Delayed Graft Function and Graft Failure. shows the results of analysis using the logistic-regression model. As compared with cold storage, machine perfusion significantly reduced the risk of delayed graft function (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P=0.01).Subgroup Analysis
In September 2006, when enrollment of donors in the study was nearly complete, the scientific steering committee expected that an insufficient number of donors would be enrolled at trial completion to conduct a meaningful subgroup analysis for donation after cardiocirculatory death. At the suggestion of the steering committee and with the permission of all centers, the inclusion of additional donors after cardiocirculatory death was extended by an amendment to the protocol, until a total of 82 donors were enrolled on August 17, 2007 (see the Supplementary Appendix for details). Solely for the subgroup analysis involving donation after brain death versus donation after cardiocirculatory death, these inclusions were added to the main group of patients to provide more statistical power. Figure 2Figure 2
Forest Plot of the Treatment Effect in Prespecified Subgroup Analyses. shows a forest plot of the treatment effect in the prespecified subgroup analyses. In the main data set, we found no significant difference in the magnitude of the treatment effect on delayed graft function after standard-criteria donation versus expanded-criteria donation (P=0.75) and after donation after brain death versus donation after cardiocirculatory death (P=0.42). In the extended data set, the effect of the preservation method on delayed graft function did not differ significantly between patients who received kidneys from donors after brain death versus patients who received kidneys from donors after cardiocirculatory death (P=0.26).Secondary End Points
Functional delayed graft function occurred in 77 recipients in the machine-perfusion group and in 101 recipients in the cold-storage group (22.9% vs. 30.1%, P=0.03). The incidence of primary nonfunction in the cold-storage group (4.8% vs. 2.1%, P=0.08) was more than two times higher than in the machine-perfusion group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. If delayed graft function developed, its duration was 3 days shorter after machine perfusion as compared with cold storage (10 days vs. 13 days, P=0.04). There were no significant differences between the study groups in creatinine clearance at 14 days after transplantation, length of hospital stay of recipients, the incidence of toxicity of the calcineurin inhibitor, and acute rejection rate in the first 14 days after transplantation. Daily serum creatinine values in the first 2 weeks after transplantation were significantly lower in recipients in the machine-perfusion group than in recipients in the cold-storage group (median area under the curve, 1456 [range, 385 to 5782] vs. 1787 [range, 288 to 6500]; P=0.01) (see Fig. S2 in the Supplementary Appendix).
Patient and Graft Survival
In the cold-storage group, one patient died within 1 week after transplantation because of cardiac arrhythmia and was therefore excluded from the study along with the recipient of the contralateral kidney. At 1 year after transplantation, patient survival was 97% in both groups. Between 7 days and 1 year after transplantation, 11 patients in the machine-perfusion group died and 9 patients in the cold-storage group died (Table 3Table 3
Adverse Events and Deaths Reported in the First Year after Transplantation.). One-year graft survival (Figure 3Figure 3
Graft Survival after Transplantation.) in the machine-perfusion group was significantly higher than in the cold-storage group (94% vs. 90%, P=0.04). Cox regression analysis (Table 2) showed that machine perfusion significantly reduced the risk of graft failure in the first year after transplantation, with a hazard ratio of 0.52 (P=0.03). A post hoc analysis in which delayed graft function was added as a time-dependent covariate to the Cox model indicated that recipients with delayed graft function had a significantly increased risk of graft failure (hazard ratio, 1.69; P<0.001); when this was applied, the hazard ratio for graft failure with machine perfusion versus cold storage increased to 0.60, and this covariate became nonsignificant in the model (P=0.08) (see the Supplementary Appendix).Adverse Events
Table 3 summarizes reported adverse events and deaths. No serious adverse events directly attributable to machine perfusion were observed.
Discussion
Static cold storage is the easiest and most widely used preservation method in kidney transplantation. In the United States, it is used in 80% of these procedures, and in Eurotransplant countries it is used in approximately 100%.24,25 Although retrospective studies have suggested that machine perfusion is superior,9-11 these registry analyses are biased because of the selection of donor kidneys to be perfused or allografts that are discarded on the basis of perfusion variables. Several prospective studies have either lacked adequate randomization or have had equivocal results because of small sample sizes.26-30 The present study indicates that machine perfusion significantly reduces the risk of delayed graft function; these findings are probably related to the study's size and strictly paired design.
The relatively large number of exclusions in our study is typical for a paired study in organ preservation, since logistics necessitated that randomization occur at a very early stage in the donation cascade, when a patient in an intensive care unit (ICU) was a potential kidney donor. Only after both kidneys had actually been transplanted could we determine whether a donor would meet the inclusion criteria. The exclusion of donors from whom one kidney was discarded may have led to a mild bias toward the “better” kidney donors in our study. The same might be true regarding donors who were not included because the donor hospital could not be reached in time by the perfusionist. Theoretically, such donors may have been patients in the ICU who had more unstable conditions. Conversely, excluding donors from whom combined kidney–pancreas transplantations were performed may have slightly biased the data in the opposite direction, since, in general, only the most optimal donors are considered for these procedures. In a small number of patients, the initial randomization was switched because of the vascular anatomy. It is unlikely that this practice has significantly biased the study's outcomes, since aberrant vascular anatomy did not have a significant effect on delayed graft function or on the risk of graft failure, and the observed effect of the machine perfusion versus cold-storage covariate did not change when this factor was added to the Cox model.
The effect of machine perfusion on delayed graft function in our study is slightly stronger than the associations observed in retrospective studies and meta-analyses (odds ratios, 0.62 to 0.73).9,10 The median cold ischemic time in both treatment groups was relatively short as compared with that in other data sets25; this may explain why the incidence of delayed graft function in the cold-storage group in this study was 8.5% lower than the originally anticipated incidence of 35.0%. In addition, the effect of machine perfusion may have been stronger if cold ischemic times had been longer.25 Machine perfusion was associated with a more pronounced decrease in functional delayed graft function than that observed in the primary end point. Hence, the magnitude of the beneficial short-term effect of machine perfusion may, in part, depend on how delayed graft function is defined.
The treatment effect on the primary end point did not differ between subgroups of deceased donors. On the basis of the evidence from this and other studies,11 it is probably most legitimate to assume that the effect of machine perfusion as compared with cold storage on delayed graft function is at or near the overall odds ratio of 0.57 in various subgroups. With this assumption, machine perfusion can be considered to have a beneficial effect on the short-term outcome in all common types of deceased-donor kidney transplantation. Nevertheless, there is a higher incidence of delayed graft function among recipients of kidneys donated after cardiocirculatory death and with expanded-criteria donation.31 Hence, the absolute number of patients who would actually benefit from machine perfusion might be larger in these subgroups.
Machine perfusion was associated with a significant decrease in graft loss, which became apparent within 1 year after transplantation. The post hoc addition of delayed graft function as a covariate to the Cox model suggests that delayed graft function renders a kidney recipient more at risk for graft failure. In addition, it was linked to an increase in the hazard ratio for graft failure associated with machine perfusion versus cold storage, and this covariate became nonsignificant in the model. Therefore, we think that the reduction in delayed graft function associated with machine perfusion contributes to the improvement in graft survival.
The number of patients with primary nonfunction was reduced by half in the machine-perfusion group as compared with the cold-storage group. However, this difference was not statistically significant, which may be explained by the low overall incidence of primary nonfunction. In this trial, characteristics of machine perfusion were not allowed to be used as a diagnostic tool to identify kidneys that were at risk for a poor outcome. Although evidence is scarce, attention to these variables, as well as to perfusate viability markers, might further increase the effect of machine perfusion on transplantation outcomes.32
In conclusion, the present trial showed that hypothermic machine perfusion reduced the incidence of delayed graft function in the kidneys obtained from the most common types of deceased donors. In addition, machine perfusion reduced the duration of delayed graft function, when it occurred. Machine-perfused renal allografts had a lower risk of graft failure in the first year after transplantation and, as a result, these kidneys showed an improved 1-year graft survival as compared with kidneys preserved by static cold storage.
Supported by Organ Recovery Systems.
Drs. Maathuis, Moers, Paul, and Leuvenink, Mr. Napieralski, Mr. van Gelder, and Mrs. van Kasterop-Kutz report receiving one congress travel grant from Organ Recovery Systems; Dr. Pirenne, receiving a research grant from the government of Flanders, Belgium, in cooperation with Organ Recovery Systems to study machine perfusion of liver grafts, for which he receives no salary; Dr. Ploeg, receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant support from Nuts Ohra Trust; Dr. Moers, receiving grant support from the Dutch Kidney Foundation; Dr. Leuvenink, receiving grant support from the Dutch Kidney Foundation and the Eurotrans-Bio pro-donor project; and Drs. Ploeg and Leuvenink, having a patent on a portable preservation apparatus for donor organs. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank Jan Schouten for his help with R software analyses, all transplantation coordinators and procurement teams in the three trial regions, and all 60 collaborating transplantation centers within Eurotransplant for their invaluable contributions to this study.
Source Information
From the Department of Surgery (C.M., M.-H.J.M., H.G.D.L., R.J.P.) and the Department of Nephrology (J.J.H.H.), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen; the Eurotransplant International Foundation, Leiden (J.M.S., M.K.-K., A.R.); and the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht (E.H.) — all in the Netherlands; the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, Essen (J.T., B.P.N., A.P.); and Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation, Frankfurt (G.R.K.) — both in Germany; and the Department of Abdominal Transplant Surgery — Transplant Coordination, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven (F.G., J.P.); and the Department of Abdominal Surgery and Transplantation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sart Tilman, and the University of Liège, Liège (J.-P.S.) — both in Belgium.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Moers at the University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, CMC V, Y2.144, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands, or at c.moers@chir.umcg.nl.
Trial investigators are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
The following persons participated in the trial: Former Director of Eurotransplant — B. Cohen; Perfusionists — I. Abou Habaga, M. Bijvoet, A. de Boer, L. Boneschansker, J. Bronkhorst, J.W. Buikema, E. Dierselhuis, M. Drescher, A. Gallinat, B. Ganske, R. Grond, J. Hamminga, F. Heisterkamp, M. Hellemons, L. van Hessem, L. van den Heuvel, A. Hosman, W. Jager, H. Jansen, M. Kilsdonk, E. Kingma, M. Lambregts, S. Lehnick, B. Lier, N. Luiting, M. Mellema, J. Munster, L. van Nunspeet, H. Oosterhuis, D. Reimer, A. Romeijn, C. Roosendaal, A. de Rotte, S. Schipperijn, M. Schlusen, T. Schwert, J. Siebe, J. Sierink, J. Sprakel, R.J. Sprong, M. Stakelbeek, T. Stege, W. Stomp, I. Thies, T.L. Trang, P.-J. Vlaar, G. de Vries, E. de Vries, M. Wiegman, L. Wierenga, J. Wind, E. Witte; Eurotransplant Duty Desk Officers — M. Bekker, C. van den Berg, T. Berger, M. Blikkendaal, L. Boogert, E.J. Bos, D. da Costa, S. Driessen, H. Duijsens, K. Govaert, J. Grundmann, S. Hermans, A. Hop, S. Hoyng, M. Hulsbos, I. Konter, M. de Kubber, S. Leenders, L. van Meer, H. van Meir, S. Mulder, S. Oudkerk, K. van Overvest, A. van der Plas, A. Ramsoebhag, J. van Rappard, F. van Ravesteyn, E. Rutgrink, F. Schalekamp, M. Siebelt, R. Taalman, S. Theunissen, J. Tielbeek, A. Tromp, T. Valk, T. Vellinga, M. Verlaan, A. Verwey, M. Vinkers, N. Vos, R. Vriesendorp, E. de Vroomen, B. Wendrich, C. Westenberg; Trial Safety Board — A. Paul, R. Ploeg, J.-P. Squifflet; Independent Data Audit Committee — N. Kornmann, F. van Galen; Former Staff Member, University Hospital Essen — M. Malago; Administrative Support — M. Leuvenink, S. Leuvenink, M. Wandelt; Database Design and Construction — L. Blom; Organ Recovery Systems Helpdesk, Advisors and Clinical Support Team — P. de Muylder, L. Rodgers, T. Rosseel, B. Theunis, J. Vercruysse; Independent Review of Trial Protocol (Centre for Evidence in Transplantation, Royal College of Surgeons of England and University of London) — P. Morris, L. Barcena, S. Knight, L. Pengel, N. Russel, N. Talawila.
- References
References
1
St Peter SD ,Imber CJ ,Friend PJ . Liver and kidney preservation by perfusion. Lancet 2002;359:604-613
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Cohen B ,D'Amaro J ,De Meester J ,Persijn GG . Changing patterns in organ donation in Eurotransplant, 1990-1994. Transpl Int 1997;10:1-6
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Cohen B ,Smits JM ,Haase B ,Persijn G ,Vanrenterghem Y ,Frei U . Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:34-41
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Moers C ,Leuvenink HG ,Ploeg RJ . Non-heart beating organ donation: overview and future perspectives. Transpl Int 2007;20:567-575
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Snoeijs MG ,Schaefer S ,Christiaans MH , et al. Kidney transplantation using elderly non-heart-beating donors: a single-center experience. Am J Transplant 2006;6:1066-1071
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Ploeg RJ ,van Bockel JH ,Langendijk PT , et al. Effect of preservation solution on results of cadaveric kidney transplantation. Lancet 1992;340:129-137
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Perico N ,Cattaneo D ,Sayegh MH ,Remuzzi G . Delayed graft function in kidney transplantation. Lancet 2004;364:1814-1827
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Rutten FF ,Ploeg RJ ,McDonnell J ,Cohen B . The cost-effectiveness of preservation with UW and EC solution for use in cadaveric kidney transplantation in the case of single kidney donors. Transplantation 1993;56:854-858
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Wight J ,Chilcott J ,Holmes M ,Brewer N . The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heart-beating donors. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-94
Medline10
Schold JD ,Kaplan B ,Howard RJ ,Reed AI ,Foley DP ,Meier-Kriesche HU . Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005;5:1681-1688
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Wight JP ,Chilcott JB ,Holmes MW ,Brewer N . Pulsatile machine perfusion vs. cold storage of kidneys for transplantation: a rapid and systematic review. Clin Transplant 2003;17:293-307
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Oosterlee A, Rahmel A, van Zwet W, eds. Eurotransplant annual report. Leiden, the Netherlands: Eurotransplant International Foundation, 2006.
13
Kootstra G ,Daemen JH ,Oomen AP . Categories of non-heart-beating donors. Transplant Proc 1995;27:2893-2894
Web of Science | Medline14
Belzer FO ,Glass NR ,Sollinger HW ,Hoffmann RM ,Southard JH . A new perfusate for kidney preservation. Transplantation 1982;33:322-323
Web of Science | Medline15
Boom H ,Paul LC ,de Fijter JW . Delayed graft function in renal transplantation. Transplant Rev 2004;18:139-152
CrossRef16
Hsieh FY ,Bloch DA ,Larsen MD . A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med 1998;17:1623-1634
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Daly PJ ,Power RE ,Healy DA ,Hickey DP ,Fitzpatrick JM ,Watson RW . Delayed graft function: a dilemma in renal transplantation. BJU Int 2005;96:498-501
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Troppmann C ,Gillingham KJ ,Benedetti E , et al. Delayed graft function, acute rejection, and outcome after cadaver renal transplantation: the multivariate analysis. Transplantation 1995;59:962-968
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
McLaren AJ ,Jassem W ,Gray DW ,Fuggle SV ,Welsh KI ,Morris PJ . Delayed graft function: risk factors and the relative effects of early function and acute rejection on long-term survival in cadaveric renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 1999;13:266-272
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Buyse ME, Staquet MJ, Sylvester RJ. Cancer clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1992.
21
Cox DR . Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972;34:187-20222
Wang R ,Lagakos SW ,Ware JH ,Hunter DJ ,Drazen JM . Statistics in medicine -- reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189-2194
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline23
Metzger RA ,Delmonico FL ,Feng S ,Port FK ,Wynn JJ ,Merion RM . Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003;3:Suppl 4:114-125
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Maathuis MH ,Leuvenink HG ,Ploeg RJ . Perspectives in organ preservation. Transplantation 2007;83:1289-1298
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Opelz G ,Dohler B . Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation. Transplantation 2007;83:247-253
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Merion RM ,Oh HK ,Port FK ,Toledo-Pereyra LH ,Turcotte JG . A prospective controlled trial of cold-storage versus machine-perfusion preservation in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1990;50:230-233
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Kwiatkowski A ,Wszola M ,Kosieradzki M , et al. Machine perfusion preservation improves renal allograft survival. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1942-1947
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
van der Vliet JA ,Kievit JK ,Hene RJ ,Hilbrands LB ,Kootstra G . Preservation of non-heart-beating donor kidneys: a clinical prospective randomised case-control study of machine perfusion versus cold storage. Transplant Proc 2001;33:847-847
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Daemen JH ,de Vries B ,Oomen AP ,DeMeester J ,Kootstra G . Effect of machine perfusion preservation on delayed graft function in non-heart-beating donor kidneys -- early results. Transpl Int 1997;10:317-322
Web of Science | Medline30
Matsuno N ,Sakurai E ,Tamaki I ,Uchiyama M ,Kozaki K ,Kozaki M . The effect of machine perfusion preservation versus cold storage on the function of kidneys from non-heart-beating donors. Transplantation 1994;57:293-294
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Saidi RF ,Elias N ,Kawai T , et al. Outcome of kidney transplantation using expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death kidneys: realities and costs. Am J Transplant 2007;7:2769-2774
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Matsuno N ,Konno O ,Mejit A , et al. Application of machine perfusion preservation as a viability test for marginal kidney graft. Transplantation 2006;82:1425-1428
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (109)
Citing Articles
1
Hieu Ledinh, Laurent Weekers, Catherine Bonvoisin, Jean-Marie Krzesinski, Josée Monard, Arnaud de Roover, Jean Paul Squifflet, Michel Meurisse, Olivier Detry. (2012) Results of kidney transplantation from controlled donors after cardio-circulatory death: a single center experience. Transplant International 25:2, 201-209
CrossRef2
Diethard Monbaliu, Jacques Pirenne, David Talbot. (2012) Liver transplantation using Donation after Cardiac Death donors. Journal of Hepatology 56:2, 474-485
CrossRef3
P. L. Tso, W. A. Dar, M. L. Henry. (2012) With Respect to Elderly Patients: Finding Kidneys in the Context of New Allocation Concepts. American Journal of Transplantationno-no
CrossRef4
Lucia Russo, Jorge Gracia-Sancho, Héctor García-Calderó, Giusi Marrone, Juan Carlos García-Pagán, Guillermo García-Cardeña, Jaime Bosch. (2012) Addition of simvastatin to cold storage solution prevents endothelial dysfunction in explanted rat livers. Hepatologyn/a-n/a
CrossRef5
Kikumi S. Ozaki, Junichi Yoshida, Shinya Ueki, Gaetan L. Pettigrew, Nisanne Ghonem, Rita M. Sico, Lung-Yi Lee, Ron Shapiro, Fadi G. Lakkis, Alvaro Pacheco-Silva, Noriko Murase. (2012) Carbon monoxide inhibits apoptosis during cold storage and protects kidney grafts donated after cardiac death. Transplant International 25:1, 107-117
CrossRef6
Ricardo Codas, Raphael Thuillier, Thierry Hauet, Lionel Badet. (2012) Renoprotective effect of pulsatile perfusion machine RM3: pathophysiological and kidney injury biomarker characterization in a preclinical model of autotransplanted pig. BJU International 109:1, 141-147
CrossRef7
A. R. Manara, P. G. Murphy, G. O'Callaghan. (2012) Donation after circulatory death. British Journal of Anaesthesia 108:suppl 1, i108-i121
CrossRef8
Gaetano Ciancio, Jeffrey J. Gaynor, Junichiro Sageshima, David Roth, Warren Kupin, Giselle Guerra, Lissett Tueros, Alberto Zarak, Lois Hanson, Susan Ganz, Linda Chen, Phillip Ruiz, Alan S. Livingstone, George W. Burke. (2012) Machine perfusion following static cold storage preservation in kidney transplantation: donor-matched pair analysis of the prognostic impact of longer pump time. Transplant International 25:1, 34-40
CrossRef9
Thomas M. Suszynski, Michael D. Rizzari, William E. Scott III, Linda A. Tempelman, Michael J. Taylor, Klearchos K. Papas. (2012) Persufflation(or Gaseous Oxygen Perfusion) as a Method of Organ Preservation. Cryobiology
CrossRef10
E. E. de Vries, E. R. P. Hoogland, B. Winkens, M. G. Snoeijs, L. W. E. van Heurn. (2011) Renovascular Resistance of Machine-Perfused DCD Kidneys Is Associated with Primary Nonfunction. American Journal of Transplantation 11:12, 2685-2691
CrossRef11
Constantino Fondevila, Amelia J. Hessheimer, Mark-Hugo J. Maathuis, Javier Muñoz, Pilar Taurá, David Calatayud, Henri Leuvenink, Antoni Rimola, Rutger J. Ploeg, Juan C. García-Valdecasas. (2011) Superior Preservation of DCD Livers With Continuous Normothermic Perfusion. Annals of Surgery 254:6, 1000-1007
CrossRef12
Maarten G. Snoeijs, Robert A. Matthijsen, Saskia Seeldrayers, Marco A. Marcus, Jan-Willem H. Daemen, Carine J. Peutz-Kootstra, Wim A. Buurman, Geert Willem H. Schurink, L.W. Ernest van Heurn. (2011) Autologous Transplantation of Ischemically Injured Kidneys in Pigs. Journal of Surgical Research 171:2, 844-850
CrossRef13
J. M. O’Callaghan, S. R. Knight, R. D. Morgan, P. J. Morris. (2011) Preservation Solutions for Static Cold Storage of Kidney Allografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Transplantationno-no
CrossRef14
C. J. E. Watson, J. A. Bradley. (2011) Cold Storage of Deceased Donor Kidneys: Does the Solution Matter or Is the Solution Elsewhere?. American Journal of Transplantationno-no
CrossRef15
K. Vekemans, J. van Pelt, M. Komuta, T. Wylin, V. Heedfeld, O. Detry, D. Monbaliu, J. Pirenne. (2011) Attempt to Rescue Discarded Human Liver Grafts by End Ischemic Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine Perfusion. Transplantation Proceedings 43:9, 3455-3459
CrossRef16
I. Jochmans, D. Monbaliu, J. Pirenne. (2011) Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, a New Biomarker Candidate in Perfusate of Machine-Perfused Kidneys: A Porcine Pilot Experiment. Transplantation Proceedings 43:9, 3486-3489
CrossRef17
D. Monbaliu, V. Heedfeld, Q. Liu, T. Wylin, J. van Pelt, K. Vekemans, J. Pirenne. (2011) Hypothermic Machine Perfusion of the Liver: Is It More Complex than for the Kidney?. Transplantation Proceedings 43:9, 3445-3450
CrossRef18
Sarah A. Hosgood, Adam D. Barlow, Phillip J. Yates, Maarten G.J. Snoeijs, Ernest L.W. van Heurn, Michael L. Nicholson. (2011) A Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility of a Short Period of Normothermic Preservation in an Experimental Model of Non Heart Beating Donor Kidneys. Journal of Surgical Research 171:1, 283-290
CrossRef19
Scot D. Henry, James V. Guarrera. (2011) Protective effects of hypothermic ex vivo perfusion on ischemia/reperfusion injury and transplant outcomes. Transplantation Reviews
CrossRef20
A. Siedlecki, W. Irish, D. C. Brennan. (2011) Delayed Graft Function in the Kidney Transplant. American Journal of Transplantation 11:11, 2279-2296
CrossRef21
I. Jochmans, C. Moers, J. M. Smits, H. G. D. Leuvenink, J. Treckmann, A. Paul, A. Rahmel, J-P. Squifflet, E. van Heurn, D. Monbaliu, R. J. Ploeg, J. Pirenne. (2011) The Prognostic Value of Renal Resistance During Hypothermic Machine Perfusion of Deceased Donor Kidneys. American Journal of Transplantation 11:10, 2214-2220
CrossRef22
Sarah A. Hosgood, Michael L. Nicholson. (2011) First in Man Renal Transplantation After Ex Vivo Normothermic Perfusion. Transplantation 92:7, 735-738
CrossRef23
Zhu-Xu Zhang, Wei-ping Min, Anthony M. Jevnikar. (2011) Use of RNA interference to minimize ischemia reperfusion injury. Transplantation Reviews
CrossRef24
Thomas Minor, Bastian Lüer, Patrik Efferz. (2011) Dopamine improves hypothermic machine preservation of the liver. Cryobiology 63:2, 84-89
CrossRef25
Brian J Nankivell, Dirk RJ Kuypers. (2011) Diagnosis and prevention of chronic kidney allograft loss. The Lancet 378:9800, 1428-1437
CrossRef26
Daisuke Nakajima, Fengshi Chen, Tetsu Yamada, Jin Sakamoto, Akihiro Osumi, Takuji Fujinaga, Tsuyoshi Shoji, Hiroaki Sakai, Toru Bando, Hiroshi Date. (2011) Hypothermic Machine Perfusion Ameliorates Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Rat Lungs From Non-Heart-Beating Donors. Transplantation 92:8, 858-863
CrossRef27
N. Chatauret, R. Thuillier, B. Barrou, T. Hauet, M. Eugene. (2011) Machine perfusion in clinical trials: the preservation solution bias. Transplant International 24:9, e81-e82
CrossRef28
Cory M. Hugen, Anthony J. Polcari, Ronald Skolek, Martin F. Mozes, John E. Milner. (2011) Illinois Statewide Dual Kidney Transplantation Experience—Are We Appropriately Selecting Kidneys?. The Journal of Urology 186:3, 996-1000
CrossRef29
A.W. Cantafio, A.A.S. Dick, J.B. Halldorson, R. Bakthavatsalam, J.D. Reyes, J.D. Perkins. (2011) Risk stratification of kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors and the utility of machine perfusion. Clinical Transplantation 25:5, E530-E540
CrossRef30
R. Thuillier, D. Dutheil, M. T. N. Trieu, V. Mallet, G. Allain, M. Rousselot, M. Denizot, J.-M. Goujon, F. Zal, T. Hauet. (2011) Supplementation With a New Therapeutic Oxygen Carrier Reduces Chronic Fibrosis and Organ Dysfunction in Kidney Static Preservation. American Journal of Transplantation 11:9, 1845-1860
CrossRef31
Jeffrey Damman, Marc A. Seelen, Cyril Moers, Mohamed R. Daha, Axel Rahmel, Henri G. Leuvenink, Andreas Paul, Jacques Pirenne, Rutger J. Ploeg. (2011) Systemic Complement Activation in Deceased Donors Is Associated With Acute Rejection After Renal Transplantation in the Recipient. Transplantation 92:2, 163-169
CrossRef32
E. R. P. Hoogland, M.G.J. Snoeijs, B. Winkens, M. H. L. Christaans, L. W. E. van Heurn. (2011) Kidney Transplantation from Donors after Cardiac Death: Uncontrolled versus Controlled Donation. American Journal of Transplantation 11:7, 1427-1434
CrossRef33
S. A. Hosgood, I. H. Mohamed, A. Bagul, M. L. Nicholson. (2011) Hypothermic machine perfusion after static cold storage does not improve the preservation condition in an experimental porcine kidney model. British Journal of Surgery 98:7, 943-950
CrossRef34
Atul Bagul, Sarah A. Hosgood. (2011) Organ retrieval and preservation. Surgery (Oxford) 29:7, 306-311
CrossRef35
Jürgen Treckmann, Cyril Moers, Jacqueline M. Smits, Anja Gallinat, Mark-Hugo J. Maathuis, Margitta van Kasterop-Kutz, Ina Jochmans, Jaap J. Homan van der Heide, Jean-Paul Squifflet, Ernest van Heurn, Günter R. Kirste, Axel Rahmel, Henri G. D. Leuvenink, Jacques Pirenne, Rutger J. Ploeg, Andreas Paul. (2011) Machine perfusion versus cold storage for preservation of kidneys from expanded criteria donors after brain death. Transplant International 24:6, 548-554
CrossRef36
S. A. De Serres, M. C. Wyler von Ballmoos. (2011) Limited Statistical Power of the Two-Sided Single Triangular Test in Sequential Method Design. American Journal of Transplantation 11:5, 1105-1105
CrossRef37
James V. Guarrera, Scot D. Henry, Sean W.C. Chen, Tod Brown, Eugenia Nachber, Ben Arrington, Jason Boykin, Benjamin Samstein, Robert S. Brown, Jean C. Emond, H. Thomas Lee. (2011) Hypothermic Machine Preservation Attenuates Ischemia/Reperfusion Markers After Liver Transplantation: Preliminary Results. Journal of Surgical Research 167:2, e365-e373
CrossRef38
Ina Jochmans, Jacques Pirenne. (2011) Graft quality assessment in kidney transplantation: not an exact science yet!. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 16:2, 174-179
CrossRef39
Jeroen Dubbeld, Bart van Hoek, Jan Ringers. (2011) Use of a liver from donor after cardiac death: is it appropriate for the sick or the stable?. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 16:2, 239-242
CrossRef40
Leo Roels, Axel Rahmel. (2011) The European experience. Transplant International 24:4, 350-367
CrossRef41
Marc-Olivier Timsit, Stefan G Tullius. (2011) Hypothermic kidney preservation: a remembrance of the past in the future?. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 16:2, 162-168
CrossRef42
Edward L. Korn, Boris Freidlin. (2011) Inefficacy Interim Monitoring Procedures in Randomized Clinical Trials: The Need to Report. The American Journal of Bioethics 11:3, 2-10
CrossRef43
B. M. Doorschodt, M. C. J. M. Schreinemachers, M. Behbahani, S. Florquin, J. Weis, M. Staat, R. H. Tolba. (2011) Hypothermic Machine Perfusion of Kidney Grafts: Which Pressure is Preferred?. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 39:3, 1051-1059
CrossRef44
Sarah A. Hosgood, Atul Bagul, Michael L. Nicholson. (2011) Minimising cold ischaemic injury in an experimental model of kidney transplantation. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 41:3, 233-240
CrossRef45
R. Hekmat, Z. Javadi, M.L. Javain, S. Bonakdaran. (2011) Protective Effect of Low Serum Thyroid Hormone Concentration on Occurrence of Functional Delayed Kidney Allograft Function Early After Transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 43:2, 516-518
CrossRef46
Mona D. Doshi, Neha Garg, Peter P. Reese, Chirag R. Parikh. (2011) Recipient Risk Factors Associated With Delayed Graft Function: A Paired Kidney Analysis. Transplantation 91:6, 666-671
CrossRef47
Dianne B. McKay. (2011) The role of innate immunity in donor organ procurement. Seminars in Immunopathology 33:2, 169-184
CrossRef48
I. Jochmans, C. Moers, R. Ploeg, J. Pirenne. (2011) To Perfuse or Not to Perfuse Kidneys Donated after Cardiac Death. American Journal of Transplantation 11:2, 409-410
CrossRef49
Arjun Iyer, Gayathri Kumarasinghe, Mark Hicks, Alasdair Watson, Ling Gao, Aoife Doyle, Anne Keogh, Eugene Kotlyar, Christopher Hayward, Kumud Dhital, Emily Granger, Paul Jansz, Roger Pye, Phillip Spratt, Peter Simon Macdonald. (2011) Primary Graft Failure after Heart Transplantation. Journal of Transplantation 2011, 1-9
CrossRef50
Maarten Naesens, Minnie M Sarwal, Dirk RJ Kuypers. (2011) Organ transplantation after cardiac death. The Lancet 377:9761, 203
CrossRef51
Ippei MATSUMOTO, Makoto SHINZEKI, Hirochika TOYAMA, Sadaki ASARI, Tadahiro GOTO, Takumi FUKUMOTO, Yonson KU. (2011) Pancreas preservation for pancreas and islet transplantation. Suizo 26:2, 142-152
CrossRef52
Willemijn N. Nijboer, Cyril Moers, Henri G. D. Leuvenink, Rutger J. Ploeg. (2011) How important is the duration of the brain death period for the outcome in kidney transplantation?. Transplant International 24:1, 14-20
CrossRef53
Alkesh Jani, Michael Zimmerman, Jessica Martin, Li Lu, Kultigin Turkmen, Kameswaran Ravichandran, Arijana Pacic, Danica Ljubanović, Charles L. Edelstein. (2011) Perfusion Storage Reduces Apoptosis in a Porcine Kidney Model of Donation After Cardiac Death. Transplantation 91:2, 169-175
CrossRef54
Edgardo E. Guibert, Alexander Y. Petrenko, Cecilia L. Balaban, Alexander Y. Somov, Joaquín V. Rodriguez, Barry J. Fuller. (2011) Organ Preservation: Current Concepts and New Strategies for the Next Decade. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 38:2, 125-142
CrossRef55
Charlotte Debbaut, Diethard Monbaliu, Christophe Casteleyn, Pieter Cornillie, Denis Van Loo, Bert Masschaele, Jacques Pirenne, Paul Simoens, Luc Van Hoorebeke, Patrick Segers. (2011) From Vascular Corrosion Cast to Electrical Analog Model for the Study of Human Liver Hemodynamics and Perfusion. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 58:1, 25-35
CrossRef56
Titte R. Srinivas, Stuart M. Flechner, Emilio D. Poggio, Medhat Askar, David A. Goldfarb, Sankar D. Navaneethan, Jesse D. Schold. (2010) Glomerular Filtration Rate Slopes Have Significantly Improved Among Renal Transplants in the United States. Transplantation 90:12, 1499-1505
CrossRef57
Marc-Olivier Timsit, Xiaodong Yuan, Bernhard Floerchinger, Xupeng Ge, Stefan G Tullius. (2010) Consequences of transplant quality on chronic allograft nephropathy. Kidney International 78, S54-S58
CrossRef58
Donald A. Molony, Brett W. Stephens. (2010) Nephrology Literature Watch. Dialysis & Transplantation 39:12, 538-540
CrossRef59
Robert Öllinger, Johann Pratschke. (2010) Role of heme oxygenase-1 in transplantation. Transplant International 23:11, 1071-1081
CrossRef60
Jason Moore, Shazia Shabir, Sourabh Chand, Andrew Bentall, Andrew McClean, Winnie Chan, Seema Jham, David Benavente, Adnan Sharif, Simon Ball, Paul Cockwell, Richard Borrows. (2010) Assessing and Comparing Rival Definitions of Delayed Renal Allograft Function for Predicting Subsequent Graft Failure. Transplantation 90:10, 1113-1116
CrossRef61
Ina Jochmans, Cyril Moers, Jacqueline M. Smits, Henri G. D. Leuvenink, Jürgen Treckmann, Andreas Paul, Axel Rahmel, Jean-Paul Squifflet, Ernest van Heurn, Diethard Monbaliu, Rutger J. Ploeg, Jacques Pirenne. (2010) Machine Perfusion Versus Cold Storage for the Preservation of Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death. Annals of Surgery 252:5, 756-764
CrossRef62
Cyril Moers, Oana C. Varnav, Ernest van Heurn, Ina Jochmans, Günter R. Kirste, Axel Rahmel, Henri G. D. Leuvenink, Jean-Paul Squifflet, Andreas Paul, Jacques Pirenne, Wim van Oeveren, Gerhard Rakhorst, Rutger J. Ploeg. (2010) The Value of Machine Perfusion Perfusate Biomarkers for Predicting Kidney Transplant Outcome. Transplantation 90:9, 966-973
CrossRef63
Susan S. Garfield, Roger W. Evans. (2010) Machine perfusion cost-effectiveness versus cold storage has been demonstrated; limiting use to marginal donor kidneys unjustified. Transplant International 23:11, e67-e68
CrossRef64
W. D. Irish, J. N. Ilsley, M. A. Schnitzler, S. Feng, D. C. Brennan. (2010) A Risk Prediction Model for Delayed Graft Function in the Current Era of Deceased Donor Renal Transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation 10:10, 2279-2286
CrossRef65
Peter J Morris. (2010) Kidneys donated after cardiac death are acceptable. The Lancet 376:9749, 1276-1278
CrossRef66
Gaetano Ciancio, Jeffrey J. Gaynor, Junichiro Sageshima, Linda Chen, David Roth, Warren Kupin, Giselle Guerra, Lissett Tueros, Alberto Zarak, Lois Hanson, Susan Ganz, Phillip Ruiz, William W. OʼNeill, Alan S. Livingstone, George W. Burke. (2010) Favorable Outcomes With Machine Perfusion and Longer Pump Times in Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center, Observational Study. Transplantation 90:8, 882-890
CrossRef67
Junya Morozumi, Naoto Matsuno, Etsuo Sakurai, Yuki Nakamura, Takao Arai, Shoichi Ohta. (2010) Application of an automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation device for kidney transplantation from uncontrolled donation after cardiac death donors in the emergency department. Clinical Transplantation 24:5, 620-625
CrossRef68
W. D. Irish, E. Katz. (2010) Cold Machine Perfusion or Static Cold Storage of Kidneys: Why the Debate Continues. American Journal of Transplantation 10:9, 1955-1956
CrossRef69
C. J. E. Watson, A. C. Wells, R. J. Roberts, J. A. Akoh, P. J. Friend, M. Akyol, F. R. Calder, J. E. Allen, M. N. Jones, D. Collett, J. A. Bradley. (2010) Cold Machine Perfusion Versus Static Cold Storage of Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death: A UK Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Transplantation 10:9, 1991-1999
CrossRef70
Julia Wilflingseder, Alexander Kainz, Irmgard Mühlberger, Paul Perco, Robert Langer, Ivan Kristo, Bernd Mayer, Rainer Oberbauer. (2010) Impaired metabolism in donor kidney grafts after steroid pretreatment. Transplant International 23:8, 796-804
CrossRef71
Jorge Gracia-Sancho, Guadalupe Villarreal, Yuzhi Zhang, Jessica X. Yu, Yao Liu, Stefan G. Tullius, Guillermo García-Cardeña. (2010) Flow Cessation Triggers Endothelial Dysfunction During Organ Cold Storage Conditions: Strategies for Pharmacologic Intervention. Transplantation 90:2, 142-149
CrossRef72
John S. Gill, William Gourlay, Jagbir Gill. (2010) Donor Pretreatment With Dopamine and Graft Function Following Kidney Transplant: A Strategy to Improve Transplant Outcomes?. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 56:1, 10-13
CrossRef73
Michael J. Taylor, Simona C. Baicu. (2010) Current state of hypothermic machine perfusion preservation of organs: The clinical perspective. Cryobiology 60:3, S20-S35
CrossRef74
M.L. Cobert, M. Peltz, L.M. West, M.E. Jessen. (2010) Importance of Organ Preservation Solution Composition in Reducing Myocardial Edema during Machine Perfusion for Heart Transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 42:5, 1591-1594
CrossRef75
Xiaodong Yuan, Ashok J. Theruvath, Xupeng Ge, Bernhard Floerchinger, Anke Jurisch, Guillermo García-Cardeña, Stefan G. Tullius. (2010) Machine perfusion or cold storage in organ transplantation: indication, mechanisms, and future perspectives. Transplant International 23:6, 561-570
CrossRef76
S. Feng. (2010) Donor Intervention and Organ Preservation: Where Is the Science and What Are the Obstacles?. American Journal of Transplantation 10:5, 1155-1162
CrossRef77
Martina Koetting, Carolin Frotscher, Thomas Minor. (2010) Hypothermic reconditioning after cold storage improves postischemic graft function in isolated porcine kidneys. Transplant International 23:5, 538-542
CrossRef78
Thomas Vogel, Jens G Brockmann, Peter J Friend. (2010) Ex-vivo normothermic liver perfusion: an update. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 15:2, 167-172
CrossRef79
A. S. Klein, E. E. Messersmith, L. E. Ratner, R. Kochik, P. K. Baliga, A. O. Ojo. (2010) Organ Donation and Utilization in the United States, 1999-2008. American Journal of Transplantation 10:4p2, 973-986
CrossRef80
Jacques Pirenne. (2010) Time to think out of the (ice) box. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 15:2, 147-149
CrossRef81
Diethard Monbaliu, John Brassil. (2010) Machine perfusion of the liver: past, present and future. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 15:2, 160-166
CrossRef82
Sarah A. Hosgood, Bin Yang, Atul Bagul, Ismail H. Mohamed, Michael L. Nicholson. (2010) A Comparison of Hypothermic Machine Perfusion Versus Static Cold Storage in an Experimental Model of Renal Ischemia Reperfusion Injury. Transplantation 89:7, 830-837
CrossRef83
Dirk Van Raemdonck. (2010) Thoracic organs: current preservation technology and future prospects; part 1: lung. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 15:2, 150-155
CrossRef84
Maarten GJ Snoeijs, LW Ernest van Heurn, Wim A Buurman. (2010) Biological modulation of renal ischemia–reperfusion injury. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 15:2, 190-199
CrossRef85
James V. Guarrera, Michael J. Goldstein, Benjamin Samstein, Scot Henry, Christopher Reverte, Ben Arrington, Tod Brown, Theresa K. Coleman, Gabriel Mattei, Natasha Mendez, Joan Kelly, Lloyd E. Ratner. (2010) ‘When good kidneys pump badly’: outcomes of deceased donor renal allografts with poor pulsatile perfusion characteristics. Transplant International 23:4, 444-446
CrossRef86
M. C. J. M. Schreinemachers, B. M. Doorschodt, S. Florquin, M. A. van den Bergh Weerman, A. Zernecke, M. M. Idu, R. H. Tolba, T. M. van Gulik. (2010) Pulsatile perfusion preservation of warm ischaemia-damaged experimental kidney grafts. British Journal of Surgery 97:3, 349-358
CrossRef87
Mohamed Amine Zaouali, Hassen Ben Abdennebi, Susagna Padrissa-Altés, Asma Mahfoudh-Boussaid, Joan Roselló-Catafau. (2010) Pharmacological strategies against cold ischemia reperfusion injury. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 11:4, 537-555
CrossRef88
C. Moers, H.G.D. Leuvenink, R.J. Ploeg. (2010) Donation after cardiac death: evaluation of revisiting an important donor source. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 25:3, 666-673
CrossRef89
Philipp Dutkowski, Olivier De Rougemont, Beat Müllhaupt, Pierre—Alain Clavien. (2010) Current and Future Trends in Liver Transplantation in Europe. Gastroenterology 138:3, 802-809.e4
CrossRef90
Bastian Lüer, Martina Koetting, Patrik Efferz, Thomas Minor. (2010) Role of oxygen during hypothermic machine perfusion preservation of the liver. Transplant International
CrossRef91
Alexander Toledo. (2010) Kidney transplantation: Waste not, want not?. Dialysis & Transplantation 39:2, 52-53
CrossRef92
J. V. Guarrera, S. D. Henry, B. Samstein, R. Odeh-Ramadan, M. Kinkhabwala, M. J. Goldstein, L. E. Ratner, J. F. Renz, H. T. Lee, R. S. Brown, Jr., J. C. Emond. (2010) Hypothermic Machine Preservation in Human Liver Transplantation: The First Clinical Series. American Journal of Transplantation 10:2, 372-381
CrossRef93
M. Giessing. (2009) 10 Jahre „Eurotransplant Senior Program“. Der Urologe 48:12, 1429-1437
CrossRef94
Hans W. Sollinger. (2009) Folkert O. Belzer and the “Hot Dog Experiment”. Surgery 146:5, 955-956
CrossRef95
Jean de Ville de Goyet. (2009) Innovative surgical techniques address the organ donation crisis, … donʼt they?. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 14:5, 507-514
CrossRef96
M. Cypel, M. Rubacha, J. Yeung, S. Hirayama, K. Torbicki, M. Madonik, S. Fischer, D. Hwang, A. Pierre, T. K. Waddell, M. de Perrot, M. Liu, S. Keshavjee. (2009) Normothermic Ex Vivo Perfusion Prevents Lung Injury Compared to Extended Cold Preservation for Transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation 9:10, 2262-2269
CrossRef97
Nicolas Pallet, Sophie Fougeray, Philippe Beaune, Christophe Legendre, Eric Thervet, Dany Anglicheau. (2009) Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress: An Unrecognized Actor in Solid Organ Transplantation. Transplantation 88:5, 605-613
CrossRef98
Jeffrey T. Cooper, Richard B. Freeman. (2009) The Value of Machine Perfusion in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 54:3, 410-412
CrossRef99
Lea Matsuoka, Jose L Almeda, Rod Mateo. (2009) Pulsatile perfusion of kidney allografts. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 14:4, 365-369
CrossRef100
Choli Hartono, Manikkam Suthanthiran. (2009) Transplantation: Pump it up: conserving a precious resource?. Nature Reviews Nephrology 5:8, 433-434
CrossRef101
Cyril Moers, Nirvana S.S. Kornmann, Henri G.D. Leuvenink, Rutger J. Ploeg. (2009) The Influence of Deceased Donor Age and Old-for-Old Allocation on Kidney Transplant Outcome. Transplantation 88:4, 542-552
CrossRef102
Anthony M. DʼAlessandro. (2009) Normothermic Liver Preservation. Annals of Surgery 250:1, 7-10
CrossRef103
Christoph Troppmann, Michael F. Daily, John P. McVicar, Richard V. Perez. (2009) Hypothermic Pulsatile Perfusion of Small Pediatric en Bloc Kidneys: Technical Aspects and Outcomes. Transplantation 88:2, 289-290
CrossRef104
K. L. Womer, B. Kaplan. (2009) Recent Developments in Kidney Transplantation-A Critical Assessment. American Journal of Transplantation 9:6, 1265-1271
CrossRef105
J. A. Akoh, M. D. Denton, S. B. Bradshaw, T. A. Rana, M. B. Walker. (2009) Early results of a controlled non-heart-beating kidney donor programme. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 24:6, 1992-1996
CrossRef106
(2009) Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine 360:14, 1460-1461
Full Text107
Jacyntha A. Sterling. (2009) Hospital Pharmacy Pulse - Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy. Hospital Pharmacy 44:3, 265-272
CrossRef108
(2009) News in brief. Nature Medicine 15:2, 124-125
CrossRef109
Tullius, Stefan G., García-Cardeña, Guillermo, . (2009) Organ Procurement and Perfusion before Transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine 360:1, 78-80
Full Text
- Letters
