Comparison of Continuous Normothermic Ex Vivo Kidney Perfusion to Dynamic and Static Hypothermic Preservation Techniques in Porcine Kidneys Donated after Cardiac Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Strategies to decrease preservation-related injury in renal grafts donated after circulatory death (DCD) urgently needed. This highlights the importance of direct comparison of dynamic preservation technologies for kidneys. Our prior work has suggested superior graft function of continuous normothermic ex vivo kidney perfusion (NEVKP) over static cold storage. Here we investigated whether NEVKP could promote functional recovery compared to hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP). Methods 15 porcine kidneys were exposed to 30min of warm ischemia, then subjected to either 16hrs of SCS, 16hrs of HMP (LifePort® 1.0) or 16hrs of NEVKP prior to autotransplantation (n=5 each group). Animals were followed for 8 days. Graft function and histology were assessed. Results Grafts preserved by NEVKP demonstrated improved graft function, and more rapid graft recovery, with the mean peak serum creatinine of 3.66 ± 1.33mg/dl, occurring on day 1, compared with 8.82 ± 3.17mg/dl in the HMP group, occurring on day 2, and 10.5 ± 5.38mg/dl in the SCS group, occurring on day 3. Differences between daily serum creatinine levels reached significance between NEVKP and HMP on day 1 (p=0.002), day 2 (p=0.004) and day 3 (p=0.024), and between HMP and SCS on day 3 (p=0.016) and day 4 (p=0.046). Injury scores [scaled from 0 to 3] were lower in both perfused groups (NEVKP, HMP): score: 1 (1-1.5) compared to SCS group: score: 1.5(1-3) in wedge biopsies taken on postoperative day 8, however this did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05). Similarly, inflammation scores were not statistically different between any groups.Conclusion In this DCD model of renal autotransplantation, we demonstrated that NEVKP significantly improved initial graft function compared to either HMP or SCS. Thus, normothermic perfusion may provide superior preservation options for DCD renal grafts than conventional hypothermic methods. The biologic mechanisms underlying normothermic preservation present new opportunities to advance these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".