Comparison of Euro-Collins and University of Wisconsin solutions in adult human cadaveric liver transplantation
- 47 Downloads
To characterize the potential utility of the University of Wisconsin (UW) solution, 37 grafts preserved in UW solution (UW group) were compared with 38 grafts preserved in Euro-Collins (EC) solution (EC group). Patients in both groups underwent similar perioperative management. Donor and recipient data in the two groups were similar. The mean cold ischemia time (CIT) of the UW group was 6.51±2.06 h (range: 3.17–14.65 h); this was significantly longer than that of the EC group, of 4.80±1.68 h (range: 1.67–8.83h) (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in actuarial patient or graft survival between the two groups. Blood concentrations of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) within 12 h and lactic dehydogenase (LDH) within 6 h of reperfusion were significantly lower in the UW group than in the EC group, each being (P<0.05). The total bilirubin (TBR) concentration was lower in the UW group than in the EC group, but the difference was not significant. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGTP), and prothrombin time (PT) showed no significant differences between the two groups. There was no difference in the frequency of complications or rejection episodes between the two groups. However, gender identical grafts had a lower rejection than gender non-identical grafts in the UW group (P<0.05). Our data suggest that the UW solution reduces transplantation-related graft injury compared with the EC solution.
Key wordsUniversity of Wisconsin solution Euro-Collins human liver transplantation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Lynch S, Kerlin P, Ong TH, Pillay SP, Wall D, Balderson G, Burrow B, Board J, Cleghorn G, Shepherd R, Clark R, Whiting R, DeBuse P, Wright M, Hourigan K, Powell L, Cooksley WG, Hardie I, Petrie J, Rigby R, O’Connor J, Kato K, Restifo A, Armstrong G, Strong R (1989) Liver transplantation in Australia: The Queensland experience. Transplant Proc 21:2399–2401.PubMedGoogle Scholar