Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Apr;157(2):87-97.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.09.001. Epub 2019 Sep 20.

Influence of 4 preservation solutions on ICU stay, graft and patient survival following liver transplantation

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Influence of 4 preservation solutions on ICU stay, graft and patient survival following liver transplantation

E Savier et al. J Visc Surg. 2020 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of four preservation solutions in liver transplantation (LT).

Patients and methods: This is a retrospective study originating from 22 French centers performing LT, registered in the prospective databank of the Cristal Biomedicine Agency between 2008 and 2013. The preservation solutions used were Celsior (CS), Institut Georges Lopez (IGL)-1, Solution de Conservation des Organes et des Tissus (SCOT) 15 and University of Wisconsin (UW) solutions. Exclusion criteria were preservation with unknown or inhomogeneous solutions, or Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution (representing only 3% of LT). Patient survival was the main endpoint. Secondary endpoints were graft survival and duration of stay in intensive care.

Results: Of 6347 LT performed, 4928 were included in this study, for which the distribution of preservation solution was CS (30%), IGL-1 (44%), SCOT 15 (10%) and UW (16%). Patient survival was 86%, 80% and 74% at 1, 3 and 5 years after LT, respectively, without any statistically significant difference between the four solutions (P=0.78). Graft survival was 82%, 75% and 69% at 1, 3 and 5 years after LT, respectively, without any statistically significant difference between the four solutions (P=0.80). Duration of intensive care was different according to the solution used in univariate analysis (P<0.001), but this effect disappeared in multivariate analysis when the center performing the transplantation was accounted for.

Conclusion: The type of preservation solution used (CS, IGL-1, SCOT 15 or UW) did not have any influence on patient or graft survival after LT.

Keywords: Human; Liver transplantation; Multicenter study; Preservation solution.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms