These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The influence of preservation injury on rejection in the hepatic transplant recipient.
    Author: Howard TK, Klintmalm GB, Cofer JB, Husberg BS, Goldstein RM, Gonwa TA.
    Journal: Transplantation; 1990 Jan; 49(1):103-7. PubMed ID: 2300999.
    Abstract:
    The records of 215 liver transplant recipients were reviewed and the degree of preservation injury was estimated by the initial aminotransferase levels. This was compared with the incidence of rejection found in the subsequent 30 days. Those with aspartate aminotransferase greater than 2000 U/L were classified as having severe preservation injury while those with ASAT less than 600 U/L were considered to have had minimal preservation injury. There were no significant differences between these groups in recipient age, sex, cold ischemia time, preoperative physical status, panel-reactive antibodies, or cytotoxic crossmatch. The solution used for organ preservation and the donor age were the only factors that were found to be significantly different between the groups. Older donors were more common in the severe preservation injury group. Severe preservation injury was found more frequently in grafts preserved in Eurocollins solution and the group with minimal preservation injury more frequently used Wisconsin solution. There was significantly more rejection seen in the severe preservation injury group (71%) than in the group without preservation injury (33%). Although there was more rejection in the severe preservation injury group, the rejections were not more severe as judged by the need for multiple courses of therapy or the need for OKT3. Recurrent rejection was also not more frequent in either group. Graft survival was worse in the severe preservation injury group, with a significant increase in early graft loss, but no difference in the frequency of chronic rejection. Recovery of graft function was also delayed in the preservation injury group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]