Premium
Comparative prospective study of two liver graft preservation solutions: University of Wisconsin and Celsior
Author(s) -
LopezAndujar Rafael,
Deusa Saulo,
Montalvá Eva,
San Juan Fernando,
Moya Angel,
Pareja Eugenia,
DeJuan Manuel,
Berenguer Marina,
Prieto Martín,
Mir Jose
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
liver transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.814
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1527-6473
pISSN - 1527-6465
DOI - 10.1002/lt.21945
Subject(s) - medicine , viaspan , surgery , liver transplantation , prospective cohort study , liver function , clinical endpoint , survival rate , alanine transaminase , urology , gastroenterology , transplantation , randomized controlled trial
University of Wisconsin solution (UWS) is the gold standard for graft preservation. Celsior solution (CS) is a new solution not as yet widely used in liver grafts. The aim of this study was to compare the liver function of transplanted grafts stored in these 2 preservation solutions. The primary endpoints were the rates of primary nonfunction (PNF) and primary dysfunction (PDF). We performed a prospective and pseudorandomized study that included 196 patients (representing 104 and 92 livers preserved in UWS and CS, respectively) at La Fe University Hospital (Valencia, Spain) between March 2003 and May 2005. PNF and PDF rates, liver function laboratory parameters, postoperative bleeding, vascular and biliary complications, and patient and graft survival at 3 years were compared for the 2 groups. The 2 groups were similar in terms of donor variables, recipient variables, and surgical techniques. The PNF rates were 2.2% and 1.9% in the CS and UWS groups, respectively ( P = not significant), and the PDF rates were 15.2% and 15.5% in the CS and UWS groups, respectively ( P = not significant). There were no significant differences in the laboratory parameters for the 2 groups, except for alanine aminotransferase levels in month 3, which were lower in the CS group ( P = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in terms of complications. Three‐year patient and graft survival rates were as follows for years 1, 2, and 3: 83%, 80%, and 76% (patient) and 80%, 77%, and 73% (graft) for the UWS group and 83%, 77%, and 70% (patient) and 81%, 73%, and 67% (graft) for the CS group ( P = not significant). In conclusion, this study shows that CS is as effective as UWS in liver preservation. Liver Transpl 15:1709–1717, 2009. © 2009 AASLD.