ArticlePloS one2021
Association between the donor to recipient ICG-PDR variation rate and the functional recovery of the graft after orthotopic liver transplantation: A case series.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Fluorescence Imaging in Liver Transplant Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite current advances in liver transplant surgery, post-operative early allograft dysfunction still complicates the patient prognosis and graft survival. The transition from the donor has not been yet fully understood, and no study quantifies if and how the liver function changes through its transfer to the recipient. The indocyanine green dye plasma disappearance rate (ICG-PDR) is a simple validated tool of liver function assessment. The variation rate between the donor and recipient ICG-PDR still needs to be investigated. MATERIALS AND
methodsSingle-center retrospective study. ICG-PDR determinations were performed before graft retrieval (T1) and 24 hours after transplant (T2). The ICG-PDR relative variation rate between T1 and T2 was calculated to assess the graft function and suffering/recovering. Matched data were compared with the MEAF model of graft dysfunction.
objectiveTo investigate whether the variation rate between the donor ICG-PDR value and the recipient ICG-PDR measurement on first postoperative day (POD1) can be associated with the MEAF score.
results36 ICG-PDR measurements between 18 donors and 18 graft recipients were performed. The mean donor ICG-PDR was 22.64 (SD 6.35), and the mean receiver's ICG-PDR on 1st POD was 17.68 (SD 6.60), with a mean MEAF value of 4.51 (SD 1.23). Pearson's test stressed a good, linear inverse correlation between the ICG-PDR relative variation and the MEAF values, correlation coefficient -0.580 (p = 0.012).
conclusionThe direct correlation between the donor to recipient ICG-PDR variation rate and MEAF was found. Measurements at T1 and T2 showed an up- or downtrend of the graft performance that reflect the MEAF values.
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.