4.7 Article

Evaluation of the ex vivo liver viability using a nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation time-based assay in a porcine machine perfusion model

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83202-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81800556]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation analyzer-based assay and ex situ normothermic machine perfusion to assess the viability of porcine DCD donor livers, confirming the superiority of dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion in cold ischemia protection.
There is a dearth of effective parameters for selecting potentially transplantable liver grafts from expanded-criteria donors. In this study, we used a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation analyzer-based assay to assess the viability of ex vivo livers obtained via porcine donation after circulatory death (DCD). Ex situ normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) was utilized as a platform for viability test of porcine DCD donor livers. A liver-targeted contrast agent, gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA), was injected into the perfusate during NMP, and the dynamic biliary excretion of the Gd-EOB-DTPA was monitored by measuring the longitudinal relaxation time (T1). The longitudinal relaxation rate (R1) of the bile was served as a parameter. The delay of increase in biliary R1 during early stage of NMP indicated the impaired function of liver grafts in both warm and cold ischemia injury, which was correlated with the change of alanine aminotransferase. The preservative superiority in cold ischemia of dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion could also be verified by assessing biliary R1 and other biochemical parameters. This study allows for the dynamic assessment of the viability of porcine DCD donor livers by combined usage of ex situ NMP and NMR relaxation time based assay, which lays a foundation for further clinical application.

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

4.7
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