ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2025
Hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion does not increase the risk of infection after liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes with Conventional Static Cold Storage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The evolution of liver graft preservation strategies in liver transplantation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is a crucial treatment for end-stage liver disease, but the limited organ supply has led to the use of extended criteria donors (ECD). The implementation of dynamic preservation techniques like hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE) is crucial in improving outcomes for ECD grafts. However, graft contamination and infection are a concern. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of infections within 10 days from LT between HOPE and static cold storage (SCS) groups and postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including LT recipients transplanted at a single-center from March 2016 to June 2023. Patients were divided into HOPE and SCS groups, and propensity score matching was used to select comparable cohorts. Data on patient and donor characteristics were analyzed. Results: After propensity score matching, a cohort of 370 (HOPE, n=185; SCS, n=185) patients was selected for analysis. The study found no significant differences in the rate of clinically relevant infections, microbiological positive samples, or donor-derived infections within 10 days between HOPE and SCS groups. Postoperative outcomes, as well as patient and graft survival, were also similar between the two groups. The study showed that HOPE is a feasible and safe approach, with a comparable risk of infection. Conclusions: The study results indicate that HOPE use in LT does not increase the risk of infection and is associated with similar patient and graft survival outcomes compared to SCS. These findings confirm the safety and efficacy of HOPE in LT and its potential to expand the donor pool without compromising recipient outcomes.
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.