Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2020
Comparison of machine perfusion versus cold storage in kidney transplant recipients from expanded criteria donors: a cohort-based study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Foucher Yohann, Fournier Marie-Cécile, Legendre Christophe, Morelon Emmanuel, Buron Fanny, Girerd Sophie, Ladrière Marc, Mourad Georges, Garrigue Valérie, Glotz Denis, Lefaucheur Carmen, Cassuto Elisabeth, Albano Laetitia, Giral Magali, Dantal Jacques, DIVAT Consortium
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing the efficacy of hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) versus static cold storage (SCS) are based on short-term outcomes. We aimed to better evaluate the mid-term impact of HMP in patients receiving expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys.
METHODS: The analyses were based on the French Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation (DIVAT) observational cohort. Patients aged ≥45 years transplanted for the first or second times from an ECD donor since 2010 were studied. Our study reported the graft and/or patient survivals and the incidence of acute rejection episode. The Cox models and the Kaplan-Meier estimators, weighted on the propensity score, were used to study the times-to-events.
RESULTS: Among the 2019 included patients, 1073 were in the SCS group versus 946 in the HMP group. The mean life expectancy with functioning graft was 5.7 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4-6.1] for the HMP cohort followed-up for 8 years post-transplantation versus 6.0 years (95% CI 5.7-6.2) for the SCS group. These mid-term results were comparable in the patients receiving grafts from donors aged ≥70 years and in the transplantations with cold ischaemia time ≥18 h.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study challenges the utility of using HMP to improve mid-term patient and graft survival. Nevertheless, the improvement of the short-term outcomes is indisputable. It is necessary to continue technological innovations to obtain long-term results.
METHODS: The analyses were based on the French Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation (DIVAT) observational cohort. Patients aged ≥45 years transplanted for the first or second times from an ECD donor since 2010 were studied. Our study reported the graft and/or patient survivals and the incidence of acute rejection episode. The Cox models and the Kaplan-Meier estimators, weighted on the propensity score, were used to study the times-to-events.
RESULTS: Among the 2019 included patients, 1073 were in the SCS group versus 946 in the HMP group. The mean life expectancy with functioning graft was 5.7 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4-6.1] for the HMP cohort followed-up for 8 years post-transplantation versus 6.0 years (95% CI 5.7-6.2) for the SCS group. These mid-term results were comparable in the patients receiving grafts from donors aged ≥70 years and in the transplantations with cold ischaemia time ≥18 h.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study challenges the utility of using HMP to improve mid-term patient and graft survival. Nevertheless, the improvement of the short-term outcomes is indisputable. It is necessary to continue technological innovations to obtain long-term results.