ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2018
Donor liver quality after hypovolemic shock and venous systemic oxygen persufflation in an experimental animal model.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ever growing demand for liver transplantation inevitably necessitates an expansion of the donor pool. Utilization of "shock organs" is considered suboptimal to date while the associated outcome has hardly been investigated. MATERIALS AND
methodsMale Wistar rats underwent a period of 30 min of hypovolemic shock. After 24 h livers were explanted and prior to reperfusion underwent either 18 h of cold storage (CS; N = 6) or 17 h of CS followed by 60 min venous systemic oxygen persufflation (VSOP; N = 6). The outcome of "shock organs (SHBD)" was compared to heart-beating donor (HBD; N = 12) as positive control and non-heart-beating donor (NHBD; N = 12) as negative control animal groups. Liver function was assessed by measuring enzyme release (AST, ALT, LDH), bile production, portal vein pressure and hepatic oxygen uptake during reperfusion. For reperfusion, the isolated perfused rat liver system was used.
resultsLiver function was severely limited in NHBD group compared to HBD organs after 18 h of CS (e.g., AST; HBD: 32.25 ± 7.25 U/l vs. NHBD: 790 ± 414.56 U/l; p < 0.005). VSOP improved liver function of NHBD organs significantly (AST; NHBD + VSOP: 333.6 ± 149.1 U/l; p < 0.005). SHBD organs showed a comparable outcome to HBD and clearly better results than NHBD organs after 18 h of CS (AST; SHBD: 76.4 ± 21.9 U/l). After 17 h of CS accompanied by 60 min VSOP, no improvement concerning liver function and integrity of SHBD organs was observed while the results were severely deteriorated by VSOP resulting in higher enzyme release (AST; SHBD + VSOP: 213 ± 61 U/l, p < 0.001), higher portal vein pressure (SHBD: 10.8 ± 1.92 mm Hg vs. SHBD + VSOP: 21.6 ± 8.8 mm Hg; p < 0.05) and lower hepatic oxygen uptake (SHBD: 321.75 ± 3.87 ml/glw/min vs. SHBD + VSOP: 395.8 ± 46.64 ml/glw/min, p < 0.05) at 24 h.
conclusionsOur data suggest that the potential of "shock organs" within liver transplantation may be underestimated. If our findings are reproducable in humans, SHBD grafts should be considered as a valuable source for expanding the thus far limited donor pool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.