4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Cytoprotective Effects of Mesenchymal Stem Cells During Liver Transplantation From Donors After Cardiac Death in Swine

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 1891-1900

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.01.165

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan
  2. Ministry of Welfare of Japan
  3. Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Liver transplantation from donors after cardiac death (DCDs) can increase the pool of available organs. Recently, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been used to treat various diseases. Some studies have reported that MSCs improve the outcome of liver transplantation from DCDs in mice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytoprotective effects and safety of MSC transplantation on liver grafts from DCDs in swine. Methods. For the MSCs, we used swine adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs). Landrace swine were divided into 3 groups (n = 5) as follows: 1. the heart-beating (HB) group, from which liver grafts were retrieved and transplanted; 2. the DCD group, from which liver grafts were retrieved 10 minutes after apnea-induced cardiac arrest and transplanted; and 3. the ADSC group, from which liver grafts were retrieved as with the DCD group, transplanted, and then infused with 1.0 x 10(7) ADSCs 2 hours after reperfusion. Results. In the HB group, all 5 recipients survived for >7 days, whereas all 5 recipients in the DCD group died within 24 hours after transplantation. In the ADSC group, 3 recipients survived for >7 days, whereas 2 recipients died within 4 days after transplantation. The survival rate was significantly higher in the ADSC group than in the DCD group. Conclusions. MSCs could protect the function of liver grafts from warm ischemia-reperfusion injury and improve the viability of DCD liver grafts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available