4.7 Article

H2S-Enriched Flush out Does Not Increase Donor Organ Quality in a Porcine Kidney Perfusion Model

期刊

ANTIOXIDANTS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antiox12030749

关键词

kidney graft preservation; ex vivo kidney perfusion; transplantation; hydrogen sulphide; H2S; ischemia reperfusion injury; brain death; cytokines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kidney extraction time has a detrimental effect on post-transplantation outcome. This study aimed to improve the flush-out and decrease ischemic injury by adding hydrogen sulphide (H2S) to the flush medium. The addition of H2S during flush out and static cold storage resulted in a reduction in pro-inflammatory cytokines without affecting renal function or injury markers.
Kidney extraction time has a detrimental effect on post-transplantation outcome. This study aims to improve the flush-out and potentially decrease ischemic injury by the addition of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) to the flush medium. Porcine kidneys (n = 22) were extracted during organ recovery surgery. Pigs underwent brain death induction or a Sham operation, resulting in four groups: donation after brain death (DBD) control, DBD H2S, non-DBD control, and non-DBD H2S. Directly after the abdominal flush, kidneys were extracted and flushed with or without H2S and stored for 13 h via static cold storage (SCS) +/- H2S before reperfusion on normothermic machine perfusion. Pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1b and IL-8 were significantly lower in H2S treated DBD kidneys during NMP (p = 0.03). The non-DBD kidneys show superiority in renal function (creatinine clearance and FENa) compared to the DBD control group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004). No differences were seen in perfusion parameters, injury markers and histological appearance. We found an overall trend of better renal function in the non-DBD kidneys compared to the DBD kidneys. The addition of H2S during the flush out and SCS resulted in a reduction in pro-inflammatory cytokines without affecting renal function or injury markers.

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