Gage F, Leeser D B, Porterfield N K, Graybill J C, Gillern S, Hawksworth J S, Jindal R M, Thai N, Falta E M, Tadaki D K, Brown T S, Elster E A
Department of the Navy, Regenerative Medicine, Naval Medical Research Center, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Transplant Proc. 2009 Nov;41(9):3571-4. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.06.228.
This pilot study compared the use of the Lifor Organ Preservation Medium (RTLF) at room temperature with hypothermic Belzer machine preservation solution (CMPS) and room in vitro temperature Belzer machine preservation solution (RTMPS) in a porcine model of uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (DCD). In this study, 5 porcine kidneys for each perfusate group were recovered under a DCD protocol. The kidneys were recovered, flushed, and placed onto a renal preservation system following standard perfusion procedures. The average flow rate for CMPS was 36.2 +/- 7.2549 mL/min, RTMPS was 90.2 +/- 9.7159 mL/min, and RTLF was 103.1 +/- 5.1108 mL/min. The average intrarenal resistance for CMPS was 1.33 +/- 0.1709 mm Hg/mL per minute, RTMPS was 0.84 +/- 0.3586 and RTLF was 0.39 +/- 0.04. All perfusion parameters were statistically significant (P < .05) at all time points for the CMPS when compared with both RTMPS and RTLF. All perfusion parameters for RTMPS and RTLF were equivalent for the first 12 hours; thereafter, RTLF became significantly better than RTMPS at 18 and 24 hours. It appears that both RTMPS and RTLF have equivalent perfusion characteristic for the initial 12 hours of perfusion, but LF continues to maintain a low resistance and high flow up to 24 hours. The results of this pilot study indicate that RTLF may represent a better alternative to pulsatile perfusion with CMPS and requires validation in an in vivo large animal transplant model.
这项初步研究在猪心脏死亡后非控制性捐赠（DCD）模型中，比较了室温下使用Lifor器官保存液（RTLF）与低温Belzer机器保存液（CMPS）以及室温体外Belzer机器保存液（RTMPS）的情况。在本研究中，按照DCD方案为每个灌注液组获取5个猪肾。按照标准灌注程序回收、冲洗肾脏并将其置于肾脏保存系统上。CMPS的平均流速为36.2±7.2549毫升/分钟，RTMPS为90.2±9.7159毫升/分钟，RTLF为103.1±5.1108毫升/分钟。CMPS的平均肾内阻力为1.33±0.1709毫米汞柱/毫升每分钟，RTMPS为0.84±0.3586，RTLF为0.39±0.04。与RTMPS和RTLF相比，CMPS在所有时间点的所有灌注参数均具有统计学显著性（P<0.05）。RTMPS和RTLF的所有灌注参数在前12小时相当；此后，在18小时和24小时时RTLF明显优于RTMPS。似乎RTMPS和RTLF在灌注的最初12小时具有相当的灌注特性，但LF在长达24小时内持续保持低阻力和高流量。这项初步研究的结果表明，RTLF可能是CMPS搏动灌注的更好替代方案，需要在体内大型动物移植模型中进行验证。
