BACKGROUND: Early immunologic and non-immunologic injury of renal allografts adversely affects long-term graft survival. Some degree of preservation injury is inevitable in cadaveric renal transplantation, and, with the reduction in early acute rejection, this non-immunologic injury has assumed a greater relative importance. Optimal graft preservation will maximize the chances of early graft function and long-term graft survival, but the best method of preservation pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) is debated. METHODS: Primary cadaveric kidney recipients from January 1990 through December 1995 were evaluated. The effects of implantation warm ischemic time (WIT) ( < or = 20 min, 21-40 min, or > 40 min) and total ischemic time (TIT) ( < or > or = 20 h) on death-censored graft survival were compared between kidneys preserved by PP versus those preserved by CS. The effect of preservation method on delayed graft function (DGF) was also examined. RESULTS: There were 568 PP kidneys and 268 CS kidneys. Overall death-censored graft survival was not significantly different between groups, despite worse donor and recipient characteristics in the PP group. CS kidneys with an implantation WIT > 40 min had worse graft survival than those with < 40 min (p = 0.0004). Survival of PP kidneys and those transplanted into 2 DR-matched recipients was not affected by longer implantation WIT. Longer TIT did not impact survival. DGF was more likely after CS preservation (20.2% versus 8.8%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation with PP improves early graft function and lessens the adverse effect of increased warm ischemia in cadaveric renal transplantation. This method is likely associated with less preservation injury and/or increases the threshold for injury from other sources and is superior to CS.
BACKGROUND: Early immunologic and non-immunologic injury of renal allografts adversely affects long-term graft survival. Some degree of preservation injury is inevitable in cadaveric renal transplantation, and, with the reduction in early acute rejection, this non-immunologic injury has assumed a greater relative importance. Optimal graft preservation will maximize the chances of early graft function and long-term graft survival, but the best method of preservation pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) is debated. METHODS: Primary cadaveric kidney recipients from January 1990 through December 1995 were evaluated. The effects of implantation warm ischemic time (WIT) ( < or = 20 min, 21-40 min, or > 40 min) and total ischemic time (TIT) ( < or > or = 20 h) on death-censored graft survival were compared between kidneys preserved by PP versus those preserved by CS. The effect of preservation method on delayed graft function (DGF) was also examined. RESULTS: There were 568 PP kidneys and 268 CS kidneys. Overall death-censored graft survival was not significantly different between groups, despite worse donor and recipient characteristics in the PP group. CS kidneys with an implantation WIT > 40 min had worse graft survival than those with < 40 min (p = 0.0004). Survival of PP kidneys and those transplanted into 2 DR-matched recipients was not affected by longer implantation WIT. Longer TIT did not impact survival. DGF was more likely after CS preservation (20.2% versus 8.8%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation with PP improves early graft function and lessens the adverse effect of increased warm ischemia in cadaveric renal transplantation. This method is likely associated with less preservation injury and/or increases the threshold for injury from other sources and is superior to CS.
Authors: Sri G Yarlagadda; Steven G Coca; Amit X Garg; Mona Doshi; Emilio Poggio; Richard J Marcus; Chirag R Parikh Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: M Z Molnar; C P Kovesdy; S Bunnapradist; E Streja; R Mehrotra; M Krishnan; A R Nissenson; K Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Valeria R Mas; Kellie J Archer; Catherine I Dumur; Mariano J Scian; Jihee L Suh; Anne L King; Megan E Wardius; Julie A Straub; Marc P Posner; Kenneth Brayman; Daniel G Maluf Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jay Nath; Alison Guy; Thomas B Smith; Mark Cobbold; Nicholas G Inston; James Hodson; Daniel A Tennant; Christian Ludwig; Andrew R Ready Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240