Association between the donor to recipient ICG-PDR variation rate and the functional recovery of the graft after orthotopic liver transplantation: A case series.
Adult
Coloring Agents
/ chemistry
Female
Graft Survival
Humans
Indocyanine Green
/ chemistry
Liver
/ pathology
Liver Diseases
/ therapy
Liver Transplantation
Male
Middle Aged
Plasma
/ chemistry
Postoperative Period
Primary Graft Dysfunction
/ diagnosis
Prognosis
Tissue Donors
Transplantation, Homologous
/ methods
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
24
05
2021
accepted:
15
08
2021
entrez:
27
8
2021
pubmed:
28
8
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite current advances in liver transplant surgery, post-operative early allograft dysfunction still complicates the patient prognosis and graft survival. The transition from the donor has not been yet fully understood, and no study quantifies if and how the liver function changes through its transfer to the recipient. The indocyanine green dye plasma disappearance rate (ICG-PDR) is a simple validated tool of liver function assessment. The variation rate between the donor and recipient ICG-PDR still needs to be investigated. Single-center retrospective study. ICG-PDR determinations were performed before graft retrieval (T1) and 24 hours after transplant (T2). The ICG-PDR relative variation rate between T1 and T2 was calculated to assess the graft function and suffering/recovering. Matched data were compared with the MEAF model of graft dysfunction. To investigate whether the variation rate between the donor ICG-PDR value and the recipient ICG-PDR measurement on first postoperative day (POD1) can be associated with the MEAF score. 36 ICG-PDR measurements between 18 donors and 18 graft recipients were performed. The mean donor ICG-PDR was 22.64 (SD 6.35), and the mean receiver's ICG-PDR on 1st POD was 17.68 (SD 6.60), with a mean MEAF value of 4.51 (SD 1.23). Pearson's test stressed a good, linear inverse correlation between the ICG-PDR relative variation and the MEAF values, correlation coefficient -0.580 (p = 0.012). The direct correlation between the donor to recipient ICG-PDR variation rate and MEAF was found. Measurements at T1 and T2 showed an up- or downtrend of the graft performance that reflect the MEAF values.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite current advances in liver transplant surgery, post-operative early allograft dysfunction still complicates the patient prognosis and graft survival. The transition from the donor has not been yet fully understood, and no study quantifies if and how the liver function changes through its transfer to the recipient. The indocyanine green dye plasma disappearance rate (ICG-PDR) is a simple validated tool of liver function assessment. The variation rate between the donor and recipient ICG-PDR still needs to be investigated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Single-center retrospective study. ICG-PDR determinations were performed before graft retrieval (T1) and 24 hours after transplant (T2). The ICG-PDR relative variation rate between T1 and T2 was calculated to assess the graft function and suffering/recovering. Matched data were compared with the MEAF model of graft dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether the variation rate between the donor ICG-PDR value and the recipient ICG-PDR measurement on first postoperative day (POD1) can be associated with the MEAF score.
RESULTS
36 ICG-PDR measurements between 18 donors and 18 graft recipients were performed. The mean donor ICG-PDR was 22.64 (SD 6.35), and the mean receiver's ICG-PDR on 1st POD was 17.68 (SD 6.60), with a mean MEAF value of 4.51 (SD 1.23). Pearson's test stressed a good, linear inverse correlation between the ICG-PDR relative variation and the MEAF values, correlation coefficient -0.580 (p = 0.012).
CONCLUSION
The direct correlation between the donor to recipient ICG-PDR variation rate and MEAF was found. Measurements at T1 and T2 showed an up- or downtrend of the graft performance that reflect the MEAF values.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34449820
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256786
pii: PONE-D-21-16544
pmc: PMC8396715
doi:
Substances chimiques
Coloring Agents
0
Indocyanine Green
IX6J1063HV
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0256786Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Transplantation. 1994 Sep 27;58(6):729-31
pubmed: 7940697
Crit Care Clin. 2019 Jan;35(1):117-133
pubmed: 30447775
J Surg Res. 2015 Jul;197(1):183-90
pubmed: 25940156
Liver Transpl. 2016 Nov;22(11):1519-1525
pubmed: 27342832
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2017 Aug 15;16(4):440-442
pubmed: 28823377
BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Nov 15;14:103
pubmed: 25844060
J Hepatol. 1999 Jan;30(1):142-8
pubmed: 9927161
Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Jan;22(1):15-23
pubmed: 29230591
Liver Transpl. 2015 Jan;21(1):38-46
pubmed: 25204890
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jan;124(1):78-82
pubmed: 21996262
Transplantation. 2017 Aug;101(8):e258-e264
pubmed: 28557956
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):5-34
pubmed: 28378250
J Clin Monit Comput. 2013 Oct;27(5):591-8
pubmed: 23677463
Clin Chem. 1997 Aug;43(8 Pt 2):1539-45
pubmed: 9265906
Hepatology. 1996 Nov;24(5):1165-71
pubmed: 8903393
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016 Feb;35(1):49-57
pubmed: 26477363
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2011 Aug;10(4):362-8
pubmed: 21813383
Liver Transpl. 2009 Oct;15(10):1247-53
pubmed: 19790138
Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 10;9(1):8421
pubmed: 31182746
Clin Transplant. 2011 Mar-Apr;25(2):297-301
pubmed: 20412097
Liver Transpl. 2013 Nov;19 Suppl 2:S6-8
pubmed: 24038766
Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Nov;62(11):3212-3220
pubmed: 28932926
Liver Transpl. 2009 Oct;15(10):1358-64
pubmed: 19790157
J Clin Monit Comput. 2021 May;35(3):505-513
pubmed: 32166552
Anaesthesia. 2014 Dec;69(12):1364-76
pubmed: 24894115
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;10(7):841-59
pubmed: 26831547
Transplant Proc. 2020 Jun;52(5):1472-1476
pubmed: 32217011
World J Hepatol. 2016 Jan 8;8(1):36-57
pubmed: 26783420
Ann Hepatol. 2016 Jan-Feb;15(1):53-60
pubmed: 26626641