Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nunes, P
Publication Date: 2007
Other Authors: Mota, A, Figueiredo, A, Macário, F, Rolo, F, Dias, V, Parada, B
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.4/566
Summary: OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of Celsior and University of Wisconsin (UW) solutions on the perfusion and cold storage of renal grafts for human transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analyses of 313 kidney transplants were performed between 2002 and 2005; group A (n = 160), UW solution and group B (n = 153), Celsior solution were used in the preservation of the organs. The mean donor age was lower in group B (group A = 42.67 years vs group B = 38.96 years; P < .05), living donors were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 10% vs group B = 0.9%; P < .001). Multiorgan procurement procedures were more common in the Celsior group (group A = 75% vs group B = 81.7%; P < .001). Recipients with no associated comorbidities were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 50% vs group B = 36%; P < .001). Recipient mean age, cold ischemia time, and HLA matches were comparable. RESULTS: Delayed graft function (group A = 22.7% vs group B = 20.6%), acute rejections (group A = 21.4% vs group B = 18.4%), and serum creatinine at 6 months (group A = 1.75 vs group B = 1.67 mg/dL), 1 year (group A = 1.47 vs group B = 1.74 mg/dL), and 2 years (group A = 1.43 vs group B = 1.58 mg/dL) showed no differences (P = NS). Graft (group A = 82.23% vs group B = 84.11%) and patient (group A = 93% vs group B = 93.69%) survivals at 3 years were similar (P = NS). There were no differences in the causes of graft loss. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of UW and Celsior solutions is equivalent in the cold storage and renal preservation for transplantation.
id RCAP_bf74eb6fb354aec7da02dde3ec94f6c6
oai_identifier_str oai:rihuc.huc.min-saude.pt:10400.4/566
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.Soluções para Preservação de OrgãosTransplantação de RimOBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of Celsior and University of Wisconsin (UW) solutions on the perfusion and cold storage of renal grafts for human transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analyses of 313 kidney transplants were performed between 2002 and 2005; group A (n = 160), UW solution and group B (n = 153), Celsior solution were used in the preservation of the organs. The mean donor age was lower in group B (group A = 42.67 years vs group B = 38.96 years; P < .05), living donors were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 10% vs group B = 0.9%; P < .001). Multiorgan procurement procedures were more common in the Celsior group (group A = 75% vs group B = 81.7%; P < .001). Recipients with no associated comorbidities were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 50% vs group B = 36%; P < .001). Recipient mean age, cold ischemia time, and HLA matches were comparable. RESULTS: Delayed graft function (group A = 22.7% vs group B = 20.6%), acute rejections (group A = 21.4% vs group B = 18.4%), and serum creatinine at 6 months (group A = 1.75 vs group B = 1.67 mg/dL), 1 year (group A = 1.47 vs group B = 1.74 mg/dL), and 2 years (group A = 1.43 vs group B = 1.58 mg/dL) showed no differences (P = NS). Graft (group A = 82.23% vs group B = 84.11%) and patient (group A = 93% vs group B = 93.69%) survivals at 3 years were similar (P = NS). There were no differences in the causes of graft loss. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of UW and Celsior solutions is equivalent in the cold storage and renal preservation for transplantation.ElsevierRIHUCNunes, PMota, AFigueiredo, AMacário, FRolo, FDias, VParada, B2009-08-24T15:09:07Z20072007-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.4/566enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-01-30T03:19:53Zoai:rihuc.huc.min-saude.pt:10400.4/566Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T19:43:07.110570Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
title Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
spellingShingle Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
Nunes, P
Soluções para Preservação de Orgãos
Transplantação de Rim
title_short Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
title_full Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
title_fullStr Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
title_sort Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
author Nunes, P
author_facet Nunes, P
Mota, A
Figueiredo, A
Macário, F
Rolo, F
Dias, V
Parada, B
author_role author
author2 Mota, A
Figueiredo, A
Macário, F
Rolo, F
Dias, V
Parada, B
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv RIHUC
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Nunes, P
Mota, A
Figueiredo, A
Macário, F
Rolo, F
Dias, V
Parada, B
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Soluções para Preservação de Orgãos
Transplantação de Rim
topic Soluções para Preservação de Orgãos
Transplantação de Rim
description OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of Celsior and University of Wisconsin (UW) solutions on the perfusion and cold storage of renal grafts for human transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analyses of 313 kidney transplants were performed between 2002 and 2005; group A (n = 160), UW solution and group B (n = 153), Celsior solution were used in the preservation of the organs. The mean donor age was lower in group B (group A = 42.67 years vs group B = 38.96 years; P < .05), living donors were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 10% vs group B = 0.9%; P < .001). Multiorgan procurement procedures were more common in the Celsior group (group A = 75% vs group B = 81.7%; P < .001). Recipients with no associated comorbidities were more frequent in the UW group (group A = 50% vs group B = 36%; P < .001). Recipient mean age, cold ischemia time, and HLA matches were comparable. RESULTS: Delayed graft function (group A = 22.7% vs group B = 20.6%), acute rejections (group A = 21.4% vs group B = 18.4%), and serum creatinine at 6 months (group A = 1.75 vs group B = 1.67 mg/dL), 1 year (group A = 1.47 vs group B = 1.74 mg/dL), and 2 years (group A = 1.43 vs group B = 1.58 mg/dL) showed no differences (P = NS). Graft (group A = 82.23% vs group B = 84.11%) and patient (group A = 93% vs group B = 93.69%) survivals at 3 years were similar (P = NS). There were no differences in the causes of graft loss. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of UW and Celsior solutions is equivalent in the cold storage and renal preservation for transplantation.
publishDate 2007
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2007
2007-01-01T00:00:00Z
2009-08-24T15:09:07Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.4/566
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.4/566
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833598280592785408