Efficacy of renal preservation: comparative study of Celsior and University of Wisconsin solutions.
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Publication Date: | 2007 |
Other Authors: | , , , , , |
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 |