Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of four preservation solutions in liver transplantation (LT).
Patients And Methods: This is a retrospective study originating from 22 French centers performing LT, registered in the prospective databank of the Cristal Biomedicine Agency between 2008 and 2013. The preservation solutions used were Celsior (CS), Institut Georges Lopez (IGL)-1, Solution de Conservation des Organes et des Tissus (SCOT) 15 and University of Wisconsin (UW) solutions. Exclusion criteria were preservation with unknown or inhomogeneous solutions, or Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution (representing only 3% of LT). Patient survival was the main endpoint. Secondary endpoints were graft survival and duration of stay in intensive care.
Results: Of 6347 LT performed, 4928 were included in this study, for which the distribution of preservation solution was CS (30%), IGL-1 (44%), SCOT 15 (10%) and UW (16%). Patient survival was 86%, 80% and 74% at 1, 3 and 5 years after LT, respectively, without any statistically significant difference between the four solutions (P=0.78). Graft survival was 82%, 75% and 69% at 1, 3 and 5 years after LT, respectively, without any statistically significant difference between the four solutions (P=0.80). Duration of intensive care was different according to the solution used in univariate analysis (P<0.001), but this effect disappeared in multivariate analysis when the center performing the transplantation was accounted for.
Conclusion: The type of preservation solution used (CS, IGL-1, SCOT 15 or UW) did not have any influence on patient or graft survival after LT.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.09.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!