Table 2.
Studies evaluating cDCD SLKT and LT outcomes: intra-operative and post-operative outcomes
| Author, date | Arms (Number of recipients and donor type) | NRP use (% and minutes) | WIT (minutes) | Liver CIT (hours) | Kidney CIT (hours) | Delayed graft function (%) | Primary non function (%) | 1-year creatinine (mg/dL) | 1-year eGFR (ml/min) | Dialysis at 1-year (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STUDIES EVALUATING cDCD VERSUS DBD IN SLKT | ||||||||||
| Nunez-Nateras et al., 2020 [45] | 30 cDCD SLKT | 0% | 22.0 | 5.3 | 8.2 | 40 |
Liver: 3.3 Kidney: 0 |
1.36 | 57.7 | 3.3 |
| 131 DBD SLKT | / | / | 5.8 | 8.2 | 23.7 |
Liver: 0.8 Kidney: 3.8 |
1.37 | 56.3 | 1.5 | |
| Croome et al., 2020 [46] | 94 cDCD SLKT (Era 1) | 0% | 17.1 | 6.8 | 11.5 | * | * | * | * | * |
| 208 cDCD SLKT (Era 2) | 0% | 17.0 | 6.4 | 10.3 | * | * | * | * | * | |
| 624 DBD SLKT (propensity matched) (Era 2) | / | / | 6.4 | 11.4 | * | * | * | * | * | |
| LaMattina et al., 2011 [47] | 5 cDCD SLKT | 0% | 19.0 | 4.6 | 12.5 | 80.0 |
Liver: 0 Kidney: 0 |
* | * | * |
| 32 DBD SLKT | / | / | 8.0 | 12.5 | 31.0 |
Liver: 6.3 Kidney: 3.1 |
* | * | * | |
| STUDIES EVALUATING NRP VERSUS SRR IN cDCD LT | ||||||||||
| Hessheimer et al., 2019 [60] | 95 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 120 min |
19.2 | 5.6 | / | / | 2.0 | * | * | * |
| 117 SRR cDCD LT | 0% | 23.1 | 5.7 | / | / | 3.0 | * | * | * | |
| Watson et al., 2019 [51] | 43 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 123 min |
30.0 | 6.4 | / | / | 0 | * | 72 | * |
| 187 SRR cDCD LT | 0% | 27.0 | 7.4 | / | / | 7.0 | * | 70 | * | |
| Hessheimer et al., 2022 [50] | 545 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 111 min |
12.0 | 5.3 | / | / | 3.0 | * | * | * |
| 258 SRR cDCD LT | 0% | 14.0 | 5.6 | / | / | 6.0 | ** | * | ||
| STUDIES EVALUATING NRP cDCD VERSUS DBD IN LT | ||||||||||
| Savier et al., 2020 [52] | 50 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 190 min |
* | 5.8 | / | / | * | * | * | * |
| 100 DBD LT | / | / | 6.3 | / | / | * | * | * | * | |
| STUDIES EVALUATING NP VERSUS SCS IN LT | ||||||||||
| Nasralla et al., 2018 [56] | 170 NP LT (107 DBD and 63 cDCD) | 0% | 21.0 | 2.1 | / | / | 0.8 | * | * | * |
| 164 SCS LT (104 DBD and 60 cDCD) | 0% | 16.0 | 7.8 | / | / | 0 | * | * | * | |
| STUDIES EVALUATING HOPE VERSUS SCS IN LT | ||||||||||
| Schlegel et al., 2019 [61] | 50 HOPE cDCD LT | 0% | 31.0 | 4.4 | / | / | 0 | * | * | * |
| 50 SCS cDCD LT | 0% | 17.0 | 4.7 | / | / | 4.0 | * | * | * | |
| 50 SCS DBD LT | / | / | 5.0 | / | / | 2.0 | * | * | * | |
| Czigany et al., 2021 [62] | 23 HOPE ECD DBD LT | / | / | 8.3 | / | / | 4.0 | * | * | * |
| 23 SCS ECD DBD LT | / | / | 8.4 | / | / | 4.0 | * | * | * | |
| Schlegel et al., 2023 [57] | 85 HOPE DBD LT | / | / | 6.2 | / | / | 0 | * | * | * |
| 85 SCS DBD LT | / | / | 7.1 | / | / | 3.5 | * | * | * | |
| STUDIES EVALUATING NRP VERSUS HOPE IN cDCD LT | ||||||||||
| Muller et al., 2020 [58] | 132 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 184 min |
22.0 | 5.7 | / | / | 2.3 | * | * | * |
| 93 HOPE cDCD LT | 0% | 31.0 | 6.4 | / | / | 4.3 | * | * | * | |
| STUDIES COMPARING NRP VERSUS NP IN cDCD LT | ||||||||||
| Mohkam et al., 2022 [63] | 34 NP cDCD LT | 0% | 20.0 | 2.3 | / | / | 0 | * | * | * |
| 68 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 184 min |
21.0 | 5.8 | / | / | 1.5 | * | * | * | |
| Gaurav et al., 2022 [59] | 69 NRP cDCD LT |
100% 133 min |
19.0 | 6.7 | / | / | 0 | * | * | * |
| 67 NP cDCD LT | 0% | 15.0 | 6.6 | / | / | 1.5 | * | * | * | |
| 97 SCS cDCD LT | 0% | 15.0 | 7.2 | / | / | 5.2 | * | * | * | |
SLKT Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantations; LT: Liver Transplantation; KT: Kidney Transplantation; DBD: Donation after Brain Death; cDCD: Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death; NP: Ex-Situ Normothermic Perfusion; NRP: Normothermic Regional Perfusion; SCS: Static Cold Storage; SRR: Super-Rapid Recovery; HOPE: Ex-Situ Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion; ECD: Extended Criteria Donors