Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation

Jesse D. Schold, Bruce Kaplan, Richard J. Howard, Alan I. Reed, David P. Foley, Herwig Ulf Meier-Kriesche

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

119 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Preservation techniques are crucial to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDTx), but the efficacy of pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) remains uncertain. We describe patterns of PP use and explore four fundamental questions. What kidneys are selected for PP? How does PP affect utilization of donated kidneys? What effect does PP have on outcomes? When does PP appear to be most efficacious? We examined rates of PP in DDTx in the United States from 1994 to 2003. We generated models for organ utilization, delayed graft function (DGF) and for the use of PP. We analyzed the long-term effect of PP with multivariate Cox models. The utilization rates for non-expanded criteria donors (ECDs) were similar by storage type, but for ECDs there was a significantly higher utilization rate with PP (70% with PP vs. 59% with CS, p <0.001). Use of PP was widely variable across transplant centers. DGF rates were significantly lower with PP (27.6% vs. 19.6%). PP was associated with a mild benefit on death censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91). Reduced DGF and significantly lower discard rates of ECDs associated with PP suggest an important utility of PP in renal transplantation. Additional evidence of improvement in graft survival, particularly in more recent years, provides further encouraging evidence for the use of PP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1681-1688
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
Volume5
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pulsatile Flow
Kidney Transplantation
Delayed Graft Function
Graft Survival
Kidney

Keywords

  • Deceased donor kidneys
  • Delayed graft function
  • Discard rate
  • Expanded criteria donors
  • Kidney transplantation
  • Pulsatile perfusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology

Cite this

Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation. / Schold, Jesse D.; Kaplan, Bruce; Howard, Richard J.; Reed, Alan I.; Foley, David P.; Meier-Kriesche, Herwig Ulf.

In: American Journal of Transplantation, Vol. 5, No. 7, 07.2005, p. 1681-1688.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schold, Jesse D. ; Kaplan, Bruce ; Howard, Richard J. ; Reed, Alan I. ; Foley, David P. ; Meier-Kriesche, Herwig Ulf. / Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation. In: American Journal of Transplantation. 2005 ; Vol. 5, No. 7. pp. 1681-1688.
@article{aa565c5673964296a7b998bbaf629e85,
title = "Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation",
abstract = "Preservation techniques are crucial to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDTx), but the efficacy of pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) remains uncertain. We describe patterns of PP use and explore four fundamental questions. What kidneys are selected for PP? How does PP affect utilization of donated kidneys? What effect does PP have on outcomes? When does PP appear to be most efficacious? We examined rates of PP in DDTx in the United States from 1994 to 2003. We generated models for organ utilization, delayed graft function (DGF) and for the use of PP. We analyzed the long-term effect of PP with multivariate Cox models. The utilization rates for non-expanded criteria donors (ECDs) were similar by storage type, but for ECDs there was a significantly higher utilization rate with PP (70{\%} with PP vs. 59{\%} with CS, p <0.001). Use of PP was widely variable across transplant centers. DGF rates were significantly lower with PP (27.6{\%} vs. 19.6{\%}). PP was associated with a mild benefit on death censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88, 95{\%} CI 0.85-0.91). Reduced DGF and significantly lower discard rates of ECDs associated with PP suggest an important utility of PP in renal transplantation. Additional evidence of improvement in graft survival, particularly in more recent years, provides further encouraging evidence for the use of PP.",
keywords = "Deceased donor kidneys, Delayed graft function, Discard rate, Expanded criteria donors, Kidney transplantation, Pulsatile perfusion",
author = "Schold, {Jesse D.} and Bruce Kaplan and Howard, {Richard J.} and Reed, {Alan I.} and Foley, {David P.} and Meier-Kriesche, {Herwig Ulf}",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00910.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "1681--1688",
journal = "American Journal of Transplantation",
issn = "1600-6135",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are we frozen in time? Analysis of the utilization and efficacy of pulsatile perfusion in renal transplantation

AU - Schold, Jesse D.

AU - Kaplan, Bruce

AU - Howard, Richard J.

AU - Reed, Alan I.

AU - Foley, David P.

AU - Meier-Kriesche, Herwig Ulf

PY - 2005/7

Y1 - 2005/7

N2 - Preservation techniques are crucial to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDTx), but the efficacy of pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) remains uncertain. We describe patterns of PP use and explore four fundamental questions. What kidneys are selected for PP? How does PP affect utilization of donated kidneys? What effect does PP have on outcomes? When does PP appear to be most efficacious? We examined rates of PP in DDTx in the United States from 1994 to 2003. We generated models for organ utilization, delayed graft function (DGF) and for the use of PP. We analyzed the long-term effect of PP with multivariate Cox models. The utilization rates for non-expanded criteria donors (ECDs) were similar by storage type, but for ECDs there was a significantly higher utilization rate with PP (70% with PP vs. 59% with CS, p <0.001). Use of PP was widely variable across transplant centers. DGF rates were significantly lower with PP (27.6% vs. 19.6%). PP was associated with a mild benefit on death censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91). Reduced DGF and significantly lower discard rates of ECDs associated with PP suggest an important utility of PP in renal transplantation. Additional evidence of improvement in graft survival, particularly in more recent years, provides further encouraging evidence for the use of PP.

AB - Preservation techniques are crucial to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDTx), but the efficacy of pulsatile perfusion (PP) versus cold storage (CS) remains uncertain. We describe patterns of PP use and explore four fundamental questions. What kidneys are selected for PP? How does PP affect utilization of donated kidneys? What effect does PP have on outcomes? When does PP appear to be most efficacious? We examined rates of PP in DDTx in the United States from 1994 to 2003. We generated models for organ utilization, delayed graft function (DGF) and for the use of PP. We analyzed the long-term effect of PP with multivariate Cox models. The utilization rates for non-expanded criteria donors (ECDs) were similar by storage type, but for ECDs there was a significantly higher utilization rate with PP (70% with PP vs. 59% with CS, p <0.001). Use of PP was widely variable across transplant centers. DGF rates were significantly lower with PP (27.6% vs. 19.6%). PP was associated with a mild benefit on death censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91). Reduced DGF and significantly lower discard rates of ECDs associated with PP suggest an important utility of PP in renal transplantation. Additional evidence of improvement in graft survival, particularly in more recent years, provides further encouraging evidence for the use of PP.

KW - Deceased donor kidneys

KW - Delayed graft function

KW - Discard rate

KW - Expanded criteria donors

KW - Kidney transplantation

KW - Pulsatile perfusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21344442881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21344442881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00910.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00910.x

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 1681

EP - 1688

JO - American Journal of Transplantation

JF - American Journal of Transplantation

SN - 1600-6135

IS - 7

ER -