The impact of time to death in donors after circulatory death on recipient outcome in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

The time to arrest donors after circulatory death is unpredictable and can vary. This leads to variable periods of warm ischemic damage prior to pancreas transplantation. There is little evidence supporting procurement team stand-down times based on donor time to death (TTD). We examined what impact TTD had on pancreas graft outcomes following donors after circulatory death (DCD) simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Data were extracted from the UK transplant registry from 2014 to 2022. Predictors of graft loss were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjusted restricted cubic spline models were generated to further delineate the relationship between TTD and outcome. Three-hundred-and-seventy-five DCD simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients were included. Increasing TTD was not associated with graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.41, P = .901). Increasing asystolic time worsened graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16-5.43, P = .020). Restricted cubic spline modeling revealed a nonlinear relationship between asystolic time and graft survival and no relationship between TTD and graft survival. We found no evidence that TTD impacts pancreas graft survival after DCD simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation; however, increasing asystolic time was a significant predictor of graft loss. Procurement teams should attempt to minimize asystolic time to optimize pancreas graft survival rather than focus on the duration of TTD.

Donor Blood Tests do Not Predict Pancreas Graft Survival After Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplantation; a National Cohort Study.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation improves quality of life and limits progression of diabetic complications. There is reluctance to accept pancreata from donors with abnormal blood tests, due to concern of inferior outcomes. We investigated whether donor amylase and liver blood tests (markers of visceral ischaemic injury) predict pancreas graft outcome using the UK Transplant Registry (2016-2021). 857 SPK recipients were included (619 following brainstem death, 238 following circulatory death). Peak donor amylase ranged from 8 to 3300 U/L (median = 70), and this had no impact on pancreas graft survival when adjusting for multiple confounders (aHR = 0.944, 95% CI = 0.754-1.81). Peak alanine transaminases also did not influence pancreas graft survival in multivariable models (aHR = 0.967, 95% CI = 0.848-1.102). Restricted cubic splines were used to assess associations between donor blood tests and pancreas graft survival without assuming linear relationships; these confirmed neither amylase, nor transaminases, significantly impact pancreas transplant outcome. This is the largest, most statistically robust study evaluating donor blood tests and transplant outcome. Provided other factors are acceptable, pancreata from donors with mild or moderately raised amylase and transaminases can be accepted with confidence. The use of pancreas grafts from such donors is therefore a safe, immediate, and simple approach to expand the donor pool to reach increasing demands.

Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting at the time of graft implantation to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications, and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses. This is an update of our review, first published in 2005 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To examine the benefits and harms of routine ureteric stenting to prevent MUCs in kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 19 June 2024) using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Our meta-analysis included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine the impact of using stents for kidney transplant recipients. We aimed to include studies regardless of the type of graft, the technique of ureteric implantation, or the patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (1960 patients) were identified. One study was deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. The remaining 11 studies were of low or medium quality, with a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Universal prophylactic ureteric stenting versus control probably reduces major urological complications (11 studies: 1834 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55; P < 0.0001; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty evidence; number needed to treat (17)); this benefit was confirmed in the only study deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. This benefit was also seen for the individual components of urine leak and ureteric obstruction. Universal prophylactic ureteric stent insertion reduces the risk of MUC in the subgroup of studies with short duration (≤ 14 days) of stenting (2 studies, 480 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI CI 0.21 to 0.72; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and where stenting was continued for > 14 days (8 studies, 124 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 29%). It is uncertain whether stenting has an impact on the development of urinary tract infection (UTI) (10 studies, 1726 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.80; P = 0.07; I² = 60%; very low certainty evidence due to risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision). Subgroup analysis showed that the risk of UTI did not increase if short-duration stenting was used (9 days) and that there was no impact on UTI risk when the prophylactic antibiotic regime co-trimoxazole 480 mg/day was used. Stents appear generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration. There was no evidence that the presence of a stent resulted in recurrent or severe haematuria (8 studies, 1546 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.00; P = 0.79; I2 = 33%). The impact of stents on graft and patient survival and other stent-related complications remains unclear as these outcomes were either poorly reported or not reported at all. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine prophylactic stenting probably reduces the incidence of MUCs, even when the duration of stenting is short (≤ 14 days). Further high-quality studies are required to assess optimal stent duration. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

Normothermic and hypothermic machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for kidney failure. Donation, transport and transplant of kidney grafts leads to significant ischaemia reperfusion injury. Static cold storage (SCS), whereby the kidney is stored on ice after removal from the donor until the time of implantation, represents the simplest preservation method. However, technology is now available to perfuse or "pump" the kidney during the transport phase ("continuous") or at the recipient centre ("end-ischaemic"). This can be done at a variety of temperatures and using different perfusates. The effectiveness of these treatments manifests as improved kidney function post-transplant. OBJECTIVES: To compare machine perfusion (MP) technologies (hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) and (sub) normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)) with each other and with standard SCS. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies until 15 June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing machine perfusion techniques with each other or versus SCS for deceased donor kidney transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory death (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD), standard and extended/expanded criteria donors). Both paired and unpaired studies were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The results of the literature search were screened, and a standard data extraction form was used to collect data. Both of these steps were performed by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Survival analyses (time-to-event) were performed with the generic inverse variance meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HR). Continuous scales of measurement were expressed as a mean difference (MD). Random effects models were used for data analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Secondary outcomes included graft survival, incidence of primary non-function (PNF), DGF duration, economic implications, graft function, patient survival and incidence of acute rejection. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (4007 participants) were included. The risk of bias was generally low across all studies and bias domains. The majority of the evidence compared non-oxygenated HMP with standard SCS (19 studies). The use of non-oxygenated HMP reduces the rate of DGF compared to SCS (16 studies, 3078 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.0001; I2 = 31%; high certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis revealed that continuous (from donor hospital to implanting centre) HMP reduces DGF (high certainty evidence). In contrast, this benefit over SCS was not seen when non-oxygenated HMP was not performed continuously (low certainty evidence). Non-oxygenated HMP reduces DGF in both DCD and DBD settings in studies performed in the 'modern era' and when cold ischaemia times (CIT) were short. The number of perfusions required to prevent one episode of DGF was 7.69 and 12.5 in DCD and DBD grafts, respectively. Continuous non-oxygenated HMP versus SCS also improves one-year graft survival (3 studies, 1056 participants: HR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.75; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). Assessing graft survival at maximal follow-up confirmed a benefit of continuous non-oxygenated HMP over SCS (4 studies, 1124 participants (follow-up 1 to 10 years): HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). This effect was not seen in studies where HMP was not continuous. The effect of non-oxygenated HMP on our other outcomes (PNF, incidence of acute rejection, patient survival, hospital stay, long-term graft function, duration of DGF) remains uncertain. Studies performing economic analyses suggest that HMP is either cost-saving (USA and European settings) or cost-effective (Brazil). One study investigated continuous oxygenated HMP versus non-oxygenated HMP (low risk of bias in all domains); the simple addition of oxygen during continuous HMP leads to additional benefits over non-oxygenated HMP in DCD donors (> 50 years), including further improvements in graft survival, improved one-year kidney function, and reduced acute rejection. One large, high-quality study investigated end-ischaemic oxygenated HMP versus SCS and found end-ischaemic oxygenated HMP (median machine perfusion time 4.6 hours) demonstrated no benefit compared to SCS. The impact of longer periods of end-ischaemic HMP is unknown. One study investigated NMP versus SCS (low risk of bias in all domains). One hour of end ischaemic NMP did not improve DGF compared with SCS alone. An indirect comparison revealed that continuous non-oxygenated HMP (the most studied intervention) was associated with improved graft survival compared with end-ischaemic NMP (indirect HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.92; P = 0.03). No studies investigated normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) or included any donors undergoing NRP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous non-oxygenated HMP is superior to SCS in deceased donor kidney transplantation, reducing DGF, improving graft survival and proving cost-effective. This is true for both DBD and DCD kidneys, both short and long CITs, and remains true in the modern era (studies performed after 2008). In DCD donors (> 50 years), the simple addition of oxygen to continuous HMP further improves graft survival, kidney function and acute rejection rate compared to non-oxygenated HMP. Timing of HMP is important, and benefits have not been demonstrated with short periods (median 4.6 hours) of end-ischaemic HMP. End-ischaemic NMP (one hour) does not confer meaningful benefits over SCS alone and is inferior to continuous HMP in an indirect comparison of graft survival. Further studies assessing NMP for viability assessment and therapeutic delivery are warranted and in progress.

Multi-Centre UK Analysis of Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney (SPK) Transplant in Recipients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

90% of the UK diabetic population are classified as T2DM. This study aims to compare outcomes after SPK transplant between recipients with T1DM or T2DM. Data on all UK SPK transplants from 2003-2019 were obtained from the NHSBT Registry (n = 2,236). Current SPK transplant selection criteria for T2DM requires insulin treatment and recipient BMI < 30 kg/m2. After exclusions (re-transplants/ambiguous type of diabetes) we had a cohort of n = 2,154. Graft (GS) and patient (PS) survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-regression models. Complications were compared using chi-squared analyses. 95.6% of SPK transplants were performed in recipients with T1DM (n = 2,060). Univariate analysis showed comparable outcomes for pancreas GS at 1 year (p = 0.120), 3 years (p = 0.237), and 10 years (p = 0.196) and kidney GS at 1 year (p = 0.438), 3 years (p = 0.548), and 10 years (p = 0.947). PS was comparable at 1 year (p = 0.886) and 3 years (p = 0.237) and at 10 years (p = 0.161). Multi-variate analysis showed comparable outcomes in pancreas GS (p = 0.564, HR 1.221, 95% CI 0.619, 2.406) and PS(p = 0.556, HR 1.280, 95% CI 0.563, 2.911). Comparable rates of common complications were demonstrated. This is the largest series outside of the US evaluating outcomes after SPK transplants and shows similar outcomes between T1DM and T2DM recipients. It is hoped dissemination of this data will lead to increased referral rates and assessment of T2DM patients who could benefit from SPK transplantation.

Early versus late removal of urinary catheter after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation. During the operation, a catheter is introduced into the bladder and remains in place postoperatively to allow the bladder to drain. This decreases tension from the cysto-ureteric anastomosis and promotes healing. Unfortunately, urinary catheters can pose an infection risk to patients as they allow bacteria into the bladder, potentially resulting in a urinary tract infection (UTI). The longer the catheter remains in place, the greater the risk of developing a UTI. There is no consensus approach to the time a catheter should remain in place post-transplant. Furthermore, the different timings of catheter removal are thought to be associated with different incidences of UTI and postoperative complications, such as anastomotic breakdown. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to compare patients who had their catheter removed < 5 days post-transplant surgery to those patients who had their catheter removed ≥ 5 days following their kidney transplant. Primary outcome measures between the two groups included: the incidence of symptomatic UTIs, the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria and the incidence of major urological complications requiring intervention and treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 April 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing timing of catheter removal post-transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included, and all recipients were included regardless of age, demographics or type of urinary catheter used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results from the literature search were screened by two authors to identify if they met our inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a urinary catheter before five days (120 hours) as an 'early removal' and anything later than this as a 'late removal.' The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model, and results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (197 patients) were included in our analysis. One study comprised a full-text article, and the other was a conference abstract with very limited information. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally either high or unclear. It is uncertain whether early versus late removal of the urinary catheter made any difference to the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (RR 0.89, 95% Cl 0.17 to 4.57; participants = 197; I2 = 88%; very low certainty evidence). Data on other outcomes, such as the incidence of UTI and the incidence of major urological complications, were lacking. Furthermore, the follow-up of patients across the studies was short, with no patients being followed beyond one month. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A high-quality, well-designed RCT is required to compare the effectiveness of early catheter removal versus late catheter removal in patients following a kidney transplant. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to suggest any difference between early and late catheter removal post-transplant, and the studies investigating this were generally of poor quality.

Fibrin-based haemostatic agents for reducing blood loss in adult liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non-FBHAs (e.g. collagen-based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin-based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non-FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non-serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non-FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus non-fibrin-based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non-FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non-FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.

Machine perfusion in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the only chance of cure for people with end-stage liver disease and some people with advanced liver cancers or acute liver failure. The increasing prevalence of these conditions drives demand and necessitates the increasing use of donated livers which have traditionally been considered suboptimal. Several novel machine perfusion preservation technologies have been developed, which attempt to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of ischaemia reperfusion injury. Machine perfusion technology aims to improve organ quality, thereby improving outcomes in recipients of suboptimal livers when compared to traditional static cold storage (SCS; ice box). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different methods of machine perfusion (including hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE), normothermic machine perfusion (NMP), controlled oxygenated rewarming, and normothermic regional perfusion) versus each other or versus static cold storage (SCS) in people undergoing liver transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 10 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials which compared different methods of machine perfusion, either with each other or with SCS. Studies comparing HOPE via both hepatic artery and portal vein, or via portal vein only, were grouped. The protocol detailed that we also planned to include quasi-randomised studies to assess treatment harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall participant survival, 2. quality of life, and 3. serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. graft survival, 5. ischaemic biliary complications, 6. primary non-function of the graft, 7. early allograft function, 8. non-serious adverse events, 9. transplant utilisation, and 10. transaminase release during the first week post-transplant. We assessed bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven randomised trials (1024 transplant recipients from 1301 randomised/included livers). All trials were parallel two-group trials; four compared HOPE versus SCS, and three compared NMP versus SCS. No trials used normothermic regional perfusion. When compared with SCS, it was uncertain whether overall participant survival was improved with either HOPE (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.98; P = 0.81, I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision because of low number of events) or NMP (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.80; P = 0.90; 1 trial, 222 recipients; very low-certainty evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias). No trials reported quality of life. When compared with SCS alone, HOPE was associated with improvement in the following clinically relevant outcomes: graft survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events in extended criteria DBD liver transplants (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.91; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinically significant ischaemic cholangiopathy in recipients of DCD livers (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.92; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 156 recipients; high-certainty evidence). In contrast, NMP was not associated with improvement in any of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP was associated with improved utilisation compared with SCS (one trial found a 50% lower rate of organ discard; P = 0.008), but the reasons underlying this effect are unknown. We identified 11 ongoing studies investigating machine perfusion technologies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In situations where the decision has been made to transplant a liver donated after circulatory death or donated following brain death, end-ischaemic HOPE will provide superior clinically relevant outcomes compared with SCS alone. Specifically, graft survival is improved (high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events are reduced (moderate-certainty evidence), and in donors after circulatory death, clinically relevant ischaemic biliary complications are reduced (high-certainty evidence). There is no good evidence that NMP has the same benefits over SCS in terms of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP does appear to improve utilisation of grafts that would otherwise be discarded with SCS; however, the reasons for this, and whether this effect is specific to NMP, is not clear. Further studies into NMP viability criteria and utilisation, as well as head-to-head trials with other perfusion technologies are needed. In the setting of donation following circulatory death transplantation, further trials are needed to assess the effect of these ex situ machine perfusion methods against, or in combination with, normothermic regional perfusion.

MicroRNA antagonist therapy during normothermic machine perfusion of donor kidneys.

Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) is a novel clinical approach to overcome the limitations of traditional hypothermic organ preservation. NMP can be used to assess and recondition organs prior to transplant and is the subject of clinical trials in solid organ transplantation. In addition, NMP provides an opportunity to deliver therapeutic agents directly to the organ, thus avoiding many limitations associated with systemic treatment of the recipient. We report the delivery of oligonucleotide-based therapy to human kidneys during NMP, in this case to target microRNA function (antagomir). An antagomir targeting mir-24-3p localized to the endothelium and proximal tubular epithelium. Endosomal uptake during NMP conditions facilitated antagomir co-localization with proteins involved in the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) and demonstrated engagement of the miRNA target. This pattern of uptake was not seen during cold perfusion. Targeting mir-24-3p action increased expression of genes controlled by this microRNA, including heme oxygenase-1 and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1. The expression of genes not under the control of mir-24-3p was unchanged, indicating specificity of the antagomir effect. In summary, this is the first report of ex vivo gymnotic delivery of oligonucleotide to the human kidney and demonstrates that NMP provides the platform to bind and block detrimental microRNAs in donor kidneys prior to transplantation.

Pharmacological testing of therapeutics using normothermic machine perfusion: A pilot study of 2,4-dinitrophenol delivery to steatotic human livers.

INTRODUCTION: Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) provides a platform for drug-delivery. However, pharmacological considerations for therapeutics delivered during NMP are scarcely reported. We aimed to demonstrate the ability of NMP as a platform for pharmacological testing, using a drug which increases metabolism (2,4-dinitrophenol; DNP) as an example therapeutic. METHODS: We performed 25 h of NMP on human livers which had been declined for transplant due to steatosis (n = 7). Three livers received a DNP bolus, three were controls, and one received a DNP infusion. RESULTS: Toxicity studies revealed DNP delivery was safe, without hepatotoxic effects. The liver surface temperature was increased in the DNP group (p = 0.046), but no livers suffered hyperthermia-the mechanism of DNP toxicity in vivo. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed DNP elimination with first-order kinetics and 7.7 h half-life (95% CI = 5.1-15.9 hrs). The clearance of DNP in bile was negligible. As expected, DNP significantly increased oxygen consumption (p = 0.023); this increase was closely correlated with perfusate DNP concentration (r2  = 0.975; p = 0.002) and the effect was lost as DNP was eliminated by the liver. A DNP infusion rate, calculated using our pharmacokinetic data, successfully maintained perfusate DNP concentration. DISCUSSION: Detailed pharmacological testing can be performed during NMP. Our therapeutic (DNP) is rapidly eliminated by the ex vivo liver, meaning the drug effect of increased metabolism is only transient. This demonstrates the importance of assessing pharmacokinetics when delivering therapeutics during NMP, especially for prolonged perfusion of organs with established roles in drug elimination. Rigorous pharmacological testing is needed to unlock the potential of NMP as a clinical drug-delivery platform.

Novel delivery of cellular therapy to reduce ischemia reperfusion injury in kidney transplantation.

Ex vivo normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) of donor kidneys prior to transplantation provides a platform for direct delivery of cellular therapeutics to optimize organ quality prior to transplantation. Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells (MAPC® ) possess potent immunomodulatory properties that could minimize ischemia reperfusion injury. We investigated the potential capability of MAPC cells in kidney NMP. Pairs (5) of human kidneys, from the same donor, were simultaneously perfused for 7 hours. Kidneys were randomly allocated to receive MAPC treatment or control. Serial samples of perfusate, urine, and tissue biopsies were taken for comparison. MAPC-treated kidneys demonstrated improved urine output (P = .009), decreased expression of injury biomarker NGAL (P = .012), improved microvascular perfusion on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cortex P = .019, medulla P = .001), downregulation of interleukin (IL)-1ß (P = .050), and upregulation of IL-10 (P < .047) and Indolamine-2, 3-dioxygenase (P = .050). A chemotaxis model demonstrated decreased neutrophil recruitment when stimulated with perfusate from MAPC-treated kidneys (P < .001). Immunofluorescence revealed prelabeled MAPC cells in the perivascular space of kidneys during NMP. We report the first successful delivery of cellular therapy to a human kidney during NMP. Kidneys treated with MAPC cells demonstrate improvement in clinically relevant parameters and injury biomarkers. This novel method of cell therapy delivery provides an exciting opportunity to recondition organs prior to transplantation.

Comparing outcomes in right versus left kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transplantation of right kidneys can pose technical challenges due to the short right renal vein. Whether this results in inferior outcomes remains controversial. METHOD: Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed each study. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as HR or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed in kidneys from deceased donors (DD) and living donors (LD). RESULTS: A total of 35 studies (257,429 participants) were identified. Both deceased and living donor right kidneys were at increased risk of delayed graft function (DGF; RR = 1.12[1.06-1.18] and RR = 1.33[1.21-1.46] respectively; both p < .0001). In absolute terms, for each 100 kidney pairs of DD kidneys transplanted there are 2.72 (1.67-3.78, p < .00001) excess episodes of DGF in right kidneys. Graft thromboses and graft loss due to technical failure was also significantly more likely in right kidneys, in both DD and LD settings. There was no evidence that laterality alters long term graft survival in LD or DD. CONCLUSION: Right kidneys have inferior early outcomes, with higher rates of DGF, technical failure and graft thrombosis. However, these differences are small in absolute terms, and long-term graft survival is equivalent.

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE1 plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE1 plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.

MiR-126-3p Is Dynamically Regulated in Endothelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition during Fibrosis.

In fibrotic diseases, myofibroblasts derive from a range of cell types including endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT). Increasing evidence suggests that miRNAs are key regulators in biological processes but their profile is relatively understudied in EndMT. In human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), EndMT was induced by treatment with TGFß2 and IL1ß. A significant decrease in endothelial markers such as VE-cadherin, CD31 and an increase in mesenchymal markers such as fibronectin were observed. In parallel, miRNA profiling showed that miR-126-3p was down-regulated in HUVECs undergoing EndMT and over-expression of miR-126-3p prevented EndMT, maintaining CD31 and repressing fibronectin expression. EndMT was investigated using lineage tracing with transgenic Cdh5-Cre-ERT2; Rosa26R-stop-YFP mice in two established models of fibrosis: cardiac ischaemic injury and kidney ureteric occlusion. In both cardiac and kidney fibrosis, lineage tracing showed a significant subpopulation of endothelial-derived cells expressed mesenchymal markers, indicating they had undergone EndMT. In addition, miR-126-3p was restricted to endothelial cells and down-regulated in murine fibrotic kidney and heart tissue. These findings were confirmed in patient kidney biopsies. MiR-126-3p expression is restricted to endothelial cells and is down-regulated during EndMT. Over-expression of miR-126-3p reduces EndMT, therefore, it could be considered for miRNA-based therapeutics in fibrotic organs.

Calcium channel blockers in pancreatic cancer: increased overall survival in a retrospective cohort study.

Repurposing commonly prescribed noncancer medications for use in oncology has substantial advantages over de-novo development of anticancer drugs. Calcium signalling has been implicated in many of the hallmarks of cancer. Previous in-vitro and in-vivo studies have shown that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are able to promote apoptosis, inhibit proliferation and prevent invasion and metastasis in a variety of cancer types. This retrospective cohort study aimed to translate this into the clinic by investigating the effect of CCBs on survival in pancreatic cancer. One hundred sixty-four patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included. Data were collected on CCB prescription, and for a range of other potentially important prognostic factors: ECOG performance status, AJCC cancer stage, chemotherapy regimen, radiotherapy, age, hypertension and sex. Participants prescribed CCB (n = 30) were more likely to be older (P = 0.004) and have hypertension (P < 0.0005); baseline demographics were otherwise similar between groups. On adjusted cox regression patients prescribed CCBs demonstrated significantly improved overall survival; hazard ratio -0.496 (0.297-0.827; P = 0.007). Performance status (P < 0.0005), tumour stage (P < 0.0005), chemotherapy regimen (P < 0.0005), radiotherapy (0.002) and age (P = 0.012) were also independent predictors of survival. The Kaplan-Meier estimated median survival was 15.3 months for patients prescribed CCBs versus 10.1 months for patients not prescribed CCBs (P = 0.131). This study supports previous work suggesting CCBs may be beneficial in pancreatic cancer. Further work on larger datasets will allow for subgroup analysis delineating the effects of specific CCBs in combination with different forms of chemotherapy, paving the way for future prospective studies.

Hypothermic machine perfusion is superior to static cold storage in deceased donor kidney transplantation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of consensus on the optimal storage method for deceased donor kidneys. This meta-analysis compares storage with hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) vs traditional static cold storage (SCS). METHODS: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register was searched to identify (quasi-) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to include in our meta-analysis. PRISMA guidelines were used to perform and write this review. RESULTS: There is high-certainty evidence that HMP reduces the risk of delayed graft function (DGF) when compared to SCS (2138 participants from 14 studies, RR = 0.77; 0.67-0.90, P = .0006). This benefit is significant in both donation following circulatory death (DCD; 772 patients from seven studies, RR = 0.75; 0.64-0.87, P = .0002) and donation following brainstem death (DBD) grafts (971 patients from four studies, RR = 0.78; 0.65-0.93, P = .006). The number of perfusions required to prevent one episode of DGF was 7.26 and 13.60 in DCD and DBD grafts, respectively. There is strong evidence that HMP also improves graft survival in both DBD and DCD grafts, at both 1 and 3 years. Economic analyses suggest HMP is cost-saving at 1 year compared with SCS. CONCLUSION: Hypothermic machine perfusion is superior to SCS in deceased donor renal transplantation. Direct comparisons with normothermic machine perfusion in RCTs are essential to identify optimal preservation methods in kidney transplantation.

Machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease. Retrieval, transport and transplant of kidney grafts causes ischaemia reperfusion injury. The current accepted standard is static cold storage (SCS) whereby the kidney is stored on ice after removal from the donor and then removed from the ice box at the time of implantation. However, technology is now available to perfuse or "pump" the kidney during the transport phase or at the recipient centre. This can be done at a variety of temperatures and using different perfusates. The effectiveness of treatment is manifest clinically as delayed graft function (DGF), whereby the kidney fails to produce urine immediately after transplant. OBJECTIVES: To compare hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) and (sub)normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) with standard SCS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 18 October 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing HMP/NMP versus SCS for deceased donor kidney transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD), standard and extended/expanded criteria donors). Both paired and unpaired studies were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The results of the literature search were screened and a standard data extraction form was used to collect data. Both of these steps were performed by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous scales of measurement were expressed as a mean difference (MD). Random effects models were used for data analysis. The primary outcome was incidence of DGF. Secondary outcomes included: one-year graft survival, incidence of primary non-function (PNF), DGF duration, long term graft survival, economic implications, graft function, patient survival and incidence of acute rejection. MAIN RESULTS: No studies reported on NMP, however one ongoing study was identified.Sixteen studies (2266 participants) comparing HMP with SCS were included; 15 studies could be meta-analysed. Fourteen studies reported on requirement for dialysis in the first week post-transplant (DGF incidence); there is high-certainty evidence that HMP reduces the risk of DGF when compared to SCS (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90; P = 0.0006). HMP reduces the risk of DGF in kidneys from DCD donors (7 studies, 772 participants: RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.87; P = 0.0002; high certainty evidence), as well as kidneys from DBD donors (4 studies, 971 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; P = 0.006; high certainty evidence). The number of perfusions required to prevent one episode of DGF (number needed to treat, NNT) was 7.26 and 13.60 in DCD and DBD kidneys respectively. Studies performed in the last decade all used the LifePort machine and confirmed that HMP reduces the incidence of DGF in the modern era (5 studies, 1355 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91; P = 0.002; high certainty evidence). Reports of economic analysis suggest that HMP can lead to cost savings in both the North American and European settings.Two studies reported HMP also improves graft survival however we were not able to meta-analyse these results. A reduction in incidence of PNF could not be demonstrated. The effect of HMP on our other outcomes (incidence of acute rejection, patient survival, hospital stay, long-term graft function, duration of DGF) remains uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HMP is superior to SCS in deceased donor kidney transplantation. This is true for both DBD and DCD kidneys, and remains true in the modern era (studies performed in the last decade). As kidneys from DCD donors have a higher overall DGF rate, fewer perfusions are needed to prevent one episode of DGF (7.26 versus 13.60 in DBD kidneys).Further studies looking solely at the impact of HMP on DGF incidence are not required. Follow-up reports detailing long-term graft survival from participants of the studies already included in this review would be an efficient way to generate further long-term graft survival data.Economic analysis, based on the results of this review, would help cement HMP as the standard preservation method in deceased donor kidney transplantation.RCTs investigating (sub)NMP are required.