4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Continuous Real-time Viability Assessment of Kidneys Based on Oxygen Consumption

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 2020-2023

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.05.082

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R43 DK070400-02S1, R44 DK070400, R43 DK070400, R43 DK070400-01A1, R44 DK070400-03A1, R43 DK070400-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Current ex vivo quality assessment of donor kidneys is limited to vascular resistance measurements and histological analysis. New techniques for the assessment of organ quality before transplantation may further improve clinical outcomes while expanding the depleted deceased-donor pool. We propose the measurement of whole organ oxygen consumption rate (WOOCR) as a method to assess the quality of kidneys in real time before transplantation. Methods. Five porcine kidneys were procured using a donation after cardiac death (DCD) model. The renal artery and renal vein were cannulated and the kidney connected to a custom-made hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) system equipped with an inline oxygenator and fiber-optic oxygen sensors. Kidneys were perfused at 8 degrees C, and the perfusion parameters and partial oxygen pressures (pO(2)) were measured to calculate WOOCR. Results. Without an inline oxygenator, the pO(2) of the perfusion solution at the arterial inlet and venous outlet diminished to near 0 within minutes. However, once adequate oxygenation was provided, a significant pO(2) difference was observed and used to calculate the WOOCR. The WOOCR was consistently measured from presumably healthy kidneys, and results suggest that it can be used to differentiate between healthy and purposely damaged organs. Conclusions. Custom-made HMP systems equipped with an oxygenator and inline oxygen sensors can be applied for WOOCR measurements. We suggest that WOOCR is a promising approach for the real-time quality assessment of kidneys and other organs during preservation before transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据