Jun-Jun Jia1, Jing Zhang1, Jian-Hui Li1, Xu-Dong Chen1, Li Jiang1, Yan-Fei Zhou1, Ning He1, Hai-Yang Xie1, Lin Zhou1, Shu-Sen Zheng1. 1. Jun-Jun Jia, Jing Zhang, Jian-Hui Li, Ning He, Hai-Yang Xie, Lin Zhou, Shu-Sen Zheng, Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To optimize the perfusates used for hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP). METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned randomly to three groups (n = 12 per group) that received either saline, University of Wisconsin cold-storage solution (UW) or histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (HTK) as the perfusate. Each group was divided into two subgroups: static cold storage (SCS) and HMP (n = 6 per subgroup). The liver graft was retrieved according to the method described by Kamada. For the SCS group, the graft was directly placed into cold perfusate (0-4 °C) for 6 h after liver isolation while the portal vein of the graft was connected to the perfusion machine for the HMP group. Then the perfusates were collected at different time points for analysis of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. Liver tissues were obtained for evaluation of histology, dry/wet weight (D/W) ratio, and malondialdehyde (MDA) and adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) levels. The portal vein pressure and velocity were monitored in real time in all HMP subgroups. RESULTS: Comparison of HMP and SCS: Regardless of the perfusate, HMP improved the architecture of donor graft in reducing the congestion around sinusoids and central vein and maintaining sinusoid lining in morphology; HMP improved liver function in terms of ALT, AST and LDH, especially during the 3-6 h period (SCS vs HMP using saline: ALT3, 225.00 ± 105.62 vs 49.50 ± 18.50, P = 0.047; LDH3, 1362.17 ± 563.30 vs 325.75 ± 147.43, P = 0.041; UW: LDH6, 2880.14 ± 948.46 vs 2135.00 ± 174.27, P = 0.049; HTK, AST6, 307.50 ± 52.95 vs 185.20 ± 20.46, P = 0.041); HMP decreased MDA level (saline, 2.79 ± 0.30 vs 1.09 ± 0.09, P = 0.008; UW, 3.01 ± 0.77 vs 1.23 ± 0.68, P = 0.005; HTK, 3.30 ± 0.52 vs 1.56 ± 0.22, P = 0.006). Comparison among HMP subgroups: HTK showed less portal vein resistance than UW and saline (vs saline, 3.41 ± 0.49 vs 5.00 ± 0.38, P < 0.001; vs UW, 3.41 ± 0.49 vs 4.52 ± 0.63, P = 0.007); UW reduced edema most efficiently (vs saline, 0.68 ± 0.02 vs 0.79 ± 0.05, P = 0.013), while HTK maintained ATP levels best (vs saline, 622.60 ± 29.11 vs 327.43 ± 44.66, P < 0.001; vs UW, 622.60 ± 29.11 vs 301.80 ± 37.68, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HMP is superior to SCS in maintaining both architecture and function of liver grafts. Further, HTK was found to be the optimal perfusate for HMP.
AIM: To optimize the perfusates used for hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP). METHODS:Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned randomly to three groups (n = 12 per group) that received either saline, University of Wisconsin cold-storage solution (UW) or histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (HTK) as the perfusate. Each group was divided into two subgroups: static cold storage (SCS) and HMP (n = 6 per subgroup). The liver graft was retrieved according to the method described by Kamada. For the SCS group, the graft was directly placed into cold perfusate (0-4 °C) for 6 h after liver isolation while the portal vein of the graft was connected to the perfusion machine for the HMP group. Then the perfusates were collected at different time points for analysis of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. Liver tissues were obtained for evaluation of histology, dry/wet weight (D/W) ratio, and malondialdehyde (MDA) and adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) levels. The portal vein pressure and velocity were monitored in real time in all HMP subgroups. RESULTS: Comparison of HMP and SCS: Regardless of the perfusate, HMP improved the architecture of donor graft in reducing the congestion around sinusoids and central vein and maintaining sinusoid lining in morphology; HMP improved liver function in terms of ALT, AST and LDH, especially during the 3-6 h period (SCS vs HMP using saline: ALT3, 225.00 ± 105.62 vs 49.50 ± 18.50, P = 0.047; LDH3, 1362.17 ± 563.30 vs 325.75 ± 147.43, P = 0.041; UW: LDH6, 2880.14 ± 948.46 vs 2135.00 ± 174.27, P = 0.049; HTK, AST6, 307.50 ± 52.95 vs 185.20 ± 20.46, P = 0.041); HMP decreased MDA level (saline, 2.79 ± 0.30 vs 1.09 ± 0.09, P = 0.008; UW, 3.01 ± 0.77 vs 1.23 ± 0.68, P = 0.005; HTK, 3.30 ± 0.52 vs 1.56 ± 0.22, P = 0.006). Comparison among HMP subgroups: HTK showed less portal vein resistance than UW and saline (vs saline, 3.41 ± 0.49 vs 5.00 ± 0.38, P < 0.001; vs UW, 3.41 ± 0.49 vs 4.52 ± 0.63, P = 0.007); UW reduced edema most efficiently (vs saline, 0.68 ± 0.02 vs 0.79 ± 0.05, P = 0.013), while HTK maintained ATP levels best (vs saline, 622.60 ± 29.11 vs 327.43 ± 44.66, P < 0.001; vs UW, 622.60 ± 29.11 vs 301.80 ± 37.68, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HMP is superior to SCS in maintaining both architecture and function of liver grafts. Further, HTK was found to be the optimal perfusate for HMP.
Authors: René Adam; Vincent Karam; Valérie Delvart; John O'Grady; Darius Mirza; Jurgen Klempnauer; Denis Castaing; Peter Neuhaus; Neville Jamieson; Mauro Salizzoni; Stephen Pollard; Jan Lerut; Andreas Paul; Juan Carlos Garcia-Valdecasas; Fernando San Juan Rodríguez; Andrew Burroughs Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: S D Henry; E Nachber; J Tulipan; J Stone; C Bae; L Reznik; T Kato; B Samstein; J C Emond; J V Guarrera Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Edgardo E Guibert; Alexander Y Petrenko; Cecilia L Balaban; Alexander Y Somov; Joaquín V Rodriguez; Barry J Fuller Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: T E Starzl; C G Groth; L Brettschneider; I Penn; V A Fulginiti; J B Moon; H Blanchard; A J Martin; K A Porter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1968-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: 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; J C Emond Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Peter Olschewski; Gerhard Hunold; Christian Eipel; Ulf Neumann; Wenzel Schöning; Volker Schmitz; Brigitte Vollmar; Peter Neuhaus; Gero Puhl Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Emma Folch-Puy; Arnau Panisello; Joan Oliva; Alexandre Lopez; Carlos Castro Benítez; René Adam; Joan Roselló-Catafau Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Zoltan Czigany; Wenzel Schöning; Tom Florian Ulmer; Jan Bednarsch; Iakovos Amygdalos; Thorsten Cramer; Xavier Rogiers; Irinel Popescu; Florin Botea; Jiří Froněk; Daniela Kroy; Alexander Koch; Frank Tacke; Christian Trautwein; Rene H Tolba; Marc Hein; Ger H Koek; Cornelis H C Dejong; Ulf Peter Neumann; Georg Lurje Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692