Premium
Efficacy and safety of Celsior preservation fluid in liver transplantation: one‐year follow up of a prospective, multicenter, non‐randomized study
Author(s) -
Boudjema Karim,
Grandadam Stéphane,
Compag Philippe,
Salamé Ephrem,
Wolf Philippe,
Ducerf Christian,
Le Treut Patrice,
Soubrane Olivier,
Cherqui Daniel,
Mouchel Catherine,
Renault Alain,
Bellissant Eric
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
clinical transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1399-0012
pISSN - 0902-0063
DOI - 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01447.x
Subject(s) - medicine , surgery , liver transplantation , transplantation , prospective cohort study , univariate analysis , clinical endpoint , randomized controlled trial , confidence interval , multivariate analysis
Boudjema K, Grandadam S, Compagnon P, Salamé E, Wolf P, Ducerf C, Le Treut P, Soubrane O, Cherqui D, Mouchel C, Renault A, Bellissant E. Efficacy and safety of Celsior preservation fluid in liver transplantation: one‐year follow up of a prospective, multicenter, non‐randomized study.
Clin Transplant 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399‐0012.2011.01447.x.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: The purpose of this prospective, nine‐center, non‐randomized study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Celsior preservation fluid in liver transplantation using unselected donors. As data comparing allograft outcomes following liver transplantation using Celsior and University of Wisconsin (UW) preservation fluids are limited, we also compared our cohort with matched controls selected from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) who received total liver grafts preserved with UW solution during the same period. One hundred and forty patients who received livers preserved with Celsior were included. The primary endpoint, graft loss at one‐yr post‐transplantation, was observed in 24 patients (17.1%) which was not significantly different from the 20.0% pre‐defined threshold rate (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.9, 23.4; p = 0.398). Predictive factors for graft loss on univariate analysis were moderate‐to‐severe steatosis on the donor graft (5/22 patients with graft loss vs. 8/107 patients without, p = 0.046) and duration of warm ischemia (1.4 ± 1.1 h in patients with graft loss vs. 0.9 ± 0.5 h in patients without, p = 0.034). Hepatic artery thrombosis and stenosis occurred in seven (5.0%) and six (4.3%) patients, respectively. The comparison of our patients to 420 ELTR controls showed that one‐yr graft survival rates (Celsior: 82.9%, 95% CI 75.8, 88.2; UW: 78.6%, 95% CI 74.4, 82.2) and Kaplan–Meier one‐yr graft survival distributions (p = 0.285) were similar. Within the cold ischemia time achieved in our study, liver preservation with Celsior appeared efficient and safe. Comparison with ELTR patients suggested that liver allograft survival was similar using Celsior or UW solution for preservation of unselected donor grafts.