SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although extensively studied in animal models, ischemic preconditioning has not yet been studied in clinical transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of cadaveric liver transplantation with and without ischemic liver preconditioning in the donor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Alternate patients were transplanted with liver grafts that had (n = 46, GroupPrecond) or had not (n = 45, GroupControl) been subjected to ischemic preconditioning. Liver ischemia-reperfusion injury, liver and kidney function, morbidity, and in-hospital mortality rates were compared in the 2 groups. Initial poor function was defined as a minimal prothrombin time within 10 days of transplantation <30% of normal and/or bilirubin >200 micromol/L. RESULTS: The postoperative peaks of ASAT (IU/L) and ALAT (IU/L) were significantly lower in GroupPrecond (556 +/- 968 and 461+/-495, respectively) than in the GroupControl (1073 +/- 1112 and 997+/-1071, respectively). The rate of technical morbidity and the incidence of acute rejection were similar in both groups. Initial poor function was significantly more frequent in the GroupPrecond (10 of 46 cases) than in the GroupControl (3 of 45 cases). Hospital mortality rates were similar in the 2 groups. In multivariate analysis, body mass index of the donor, graft steatosis, and ischemic preconditioning were significantly predictive of the posttransplant peak of ASAT. In univariate analysis, only preconditioning was significantly associated with initial poor function. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard orthotopic liver transplant, ischemic preconditioning of the liver graft in the donor is associated with better tolerance to ischemia. However, this is at the price of decreased early function. Until further studies are available, the clinical value of preconditioning liver grafts remains uncertain.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although extensively studied in animal models, ischemic preconditioning has not yet been studied in clinical transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of cadaveric liver transplantation with and without ischemic liver preconditioning in the donor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Alternate patients were transplanted with liver grafts that had (n = 46, GroupPrecond) or had not (n = 45, GroupControl) been subjected to ischemic preconditioning. Liver ischemia-reperfusion injury, liver and kidney function, morbidity, and in-hospital mortality rates were compared in the 2 groups. Initial poor function was defined as a minimal prothrombin time within 10 days of transplantation <30% of normal and/or bilirubin >200 micromol/L. RESULTS: The postoperative peaks of ASAT (IU/L) and ALAT (IU/L) were significantly lower in GroupPrecond (556 +/- 968 and 461+/-495, respectively) than in the GroupControl (1073 +/- 1112 and 997+/-1071, respectively). The rate of technical morbidity and the incidence of acute rejection were similar in both groups. Initial poor function was significantly more frequent in the GroupPrecond (10 of 46 cases) than in the GroupControl (3 of 45 cases). Hospital mortality rates were similar in the 2 groups. In multivariate analysis, body mass index of the donor, graft steatosis, and ischemic preconditioning were significantly predictive of the posttransplant peak of ASAT. In univariate analysis, only preconditioning was significantly associated with initial poor function. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard orthotopic liver transplant, ischemic preconditioning of the liver graft in the donor is associated with better tolerance to ischemia. However, this is at the price of decreased early function. Until further studies are available, the clinical value of preconditioning liver grafts remains uncertain.
Authors: P D Greig; J Forster; R A Superina; S M Strasberg; M Mohamed; L M Blendis; B R Taylor; G A Levy; B Langer Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: R Adam; M Reynes; M Johann; M Morino; I Astarcioglu; I Kafetzis; D Castaing; H Bismuth Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: R J Ploeg; A M D'Alessandro; S J Knechtle; M D Stegall; J D Pirsch; R M Hoffmann; T Sasaki; H W Sollinger; F O Belzer; M Kalayoglu Journal: Transplantation Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: A M D'Alessandro; M Kalayoglu; H W Sollinger; R M Hoffmann; A Reed; S J Knechtle; J D Pirsch; G R Hafez; D Lorentzen; F O Belzer Journal: Transplantation Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: E Mor; G B Klintmalm; T A Gonwa; H Solomon; M J Holman; J F Gibbs; I Watemberg; R M Goldstein; B S Husberg Journal: Transplantation Date: 1992-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: R Adam; H Bismuth; T Diamond; B Ducot; M Morino; I Astarcioglu; M Johann; D Azoulay; L Chiche; Y M Bao Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-12-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Antonio Siniscalchi; Lorenzo Gamberini; Cristiana Laici; Tommaso Bardi; Giorgio Ercolani; Laura Lorenzini; Stefano Faenza Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742