IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0056368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine Perfusion versus Cold Storage of Kidneys Derived from Donation after Cardiac Death: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ronghai Deng
  • Guangxiang Gu
  • Dongping Wang
  • Qiang Tai
  • Linwei Wu
  • Weiqiang Ju
  • Xiaofeng Zhu
  • Zhiyong Guo
  • Xiaoshun He

Abstract

Background: In response to the increased organ shortage, organs derived from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are becoming an acceptable option once again for clinical use in transplantation. However, transplant outcomes in cases where DCD organs are used are not as favorable as those from donation after brain death or living donors. Different methods of organ preservation are a key factor that may influence the outcomes of DCD kidney transplantation. Methods: We compared the transplant outcomes in patients receiving DCD kidneys preserved by machine perfusion (MP) or by static cold storage (CS) preservation by conducting a meta-analysis. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All studies reporting outcomes for MP versus CS preserved DCD kidneys were further considered for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to compare the pooled data between groups that were transplanted with kidneys that were preserved by MP or CS. Results: Four prospective, randomized, controlled trials, involving 175 MP and 176 CS preserved DCD kidney transplant recipients, were included. MP preserved DCD kidney transplant recipients had a decreased incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) with an odd ration of 0.56 (95% CI = 0.36–0.86, P = 0.008) compared to CS. However, no significant differences were seen between the two technologies in incidence of primary non-function, one year graft survival, or one year patient survival. Conclusions: MP preservation of DCD kidneys is superior to CS in terms of reducing DGF rate post-transplant. However, primary non-function, one year graft survival, and one year patient survival were not affected by the use of MP or CS for preservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronghai Deng & Guangxiang Gu & Dongping Wang & Qiang Tai & Linwei Wu & Weiqiang Ju & Xiaofeng Zhu & Zhiyong Guo & Xiaoshun He, 2013. "Machine Perfusion versus Cold Storage of Kidneys Derived from Donation after Cardiac Death: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-6, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0056368
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056368
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056368&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0056368?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0056368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.