A randomized study comparing IGL-1 to the University of Wisconsin preservation solution in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) is a new preservation solution with lower potassium and lower viscosity than University Wisconsin solution (UW). These characteristics which improve liver preservation lead us to evaluate clinical effects of IGL-1 in a randomized controlled study with UW. MATERIAL/METHODS: From June 2007 to July 2009, after exclusion of partial graft, combined transplantation and fulminant hepatic failure, 140 deceased donor allografts were randomly assigned to IGL-1 (n=48) or UW (n=92) solution. Variables concerning donors and recipients were collected including liver tests (total serum bilirubin, prothrombin time and transaminases) were analyzed until postoperative day 30. Incidences of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), primary non function (PNF) and biliary non anastomotic strictures (NAS) were analyzed. The comparative analysis of costs was realized. RESULTS: Donor and recipients characteristics were similar in both groups. Volume of preservation solution utilized for harvesting was identical. Duration of cold ischemia (472±142 vs. 477±122 min), surgery (427±97 vs. 437±94 min) and proportion of extended criteria donor was similar. Postoperative kinetic and level liver tests were similar. Rate of PNF (2% vs. 4%), early retransplantation (6% vs. 7%), incidence of biliary NAS (2% vs. 3%) and HAT (6% vs. 4%) were similar. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was similar (5.6 vs. 6.1 days). However costs related to preservation solution for one liver procurement were 992.0 for IGL-1 vs. 1609.0 Euros for UW. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this randomized study shows that the efficacy and safety of IGL-1 are comparable to those of the reference UW with a lower cost.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and cost between University of Wisconsin solution and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare University of Wisconsin solution (Viaspan), the universal standard for organ preservation, with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution. An analysis of each solution, in reference to clinical trials with specific organs, is presented and assessed to find the efficacy of each in a clinical environment. Also to view each solution from an economical standpoint, and in the end develop an overall understanding of the key similarities and differences between each solution in order to assess appropriate use of each in a clinical setting. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted by using PubMed, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Embase, and other online data bases to find the most recent studies of University of Wisconsin and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solutions. Search terms included University of Wisconsin solution, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate, preservation solution, cost analysis, biliary complication, and other related subjects. STUDY SELECTION: Previous research was selected from the literature search to provide basic information on the 2 solutions and also to provide clinical examples of each solution and the efficacy of each with specific organs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Information and published articles on the 2 solutions were gathered for descriptive and comparative purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 solutions appear equally effective in organ preservation. Each solution has its own organ-specific qualities, and each has different complications. The studies reviewed here indicate that the differences are minor and thus suggest that the 2 solutions are equally acceptable for clinical use. Of the 2 solutions, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate costs less than University of Wisconsin solution.

Effects of Eurocollins solution as aortic flush for the procurement of human pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Belzer solution is considered to be the best preservation media used for pancreas transplantation; however, its high cost accounts for approximately 14.5% of all resources allocated by the Brazilian government toward each pancreatic transplant. The objective of the present study was to test a reduction of Belzer solution during pancreas harvest, thereby lowering procedural cost. METHODS: The patients received pancreas-kidney transplantations during the period from January 2003 to August 2004. Patients were divided into two groups. Patients assigned to Group A (n=30) received only Belzer solution (2 L through the aorta artery), whereas patients in Group B (n=16) were perfused first with 1 L of Eurocollins solution followed by 1 L of Belzer solution. The two groups were assessed for differences in the following clinical parameters: the need for insulin replacement or antifungal and anticytomegalovirus treatment, pancreatitis, acute cellular rejection, graft vascular thrombosis, fistulas, intra-abdominal collection, graft loss, deaths, pancreatic ischemia time, and average hospitalization time. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in any of the parameters analyzed (P<0.05). The use of Eurocollins solution, followed by Belzer solution during pancreas harvesting, did not result in differences in graft survival or functionality, postsurgical complications, or patient survival and hospitalization time, when compared to the use of Belzer solution alone. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion with 1 L of Eurocollins solution followed by 1 L of Belzer solution during pancreas harvesting seems to be a simple and efficient alternative for reducing the costs of the harvesting process.

Comparative study on two kidney graft rinsing and preservation solutions in terms of the post-transplantation risk of delayed graft function and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Belzer solution (Viaspan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Brussels, Belgium), which is more expensive than Eurocollins solution, was better at preventing delayed graft function (DGF) and whether it was cost-effective as it could potentially reduce post-transplantation complications. METHOD: The risk of occurrence of complications associated with the use of these two rinsing and preserving solutions was estimated from a survey of 106 patients undergoing renal transplantation between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1998. Both efficacy and adverse outcomes were recorded along with the costs directly associated with the transplantation procedure in the hospital setting: hospitalization, rinsing and preserving solutions, medical and technical interventions and diagnostic tests. RESULTS: For the 45 kidney grafts rinsed and preserved with Eurocollins (strategy S1: n1 = 45) the cost/graft was estimated at 40 euros. With Viaspan (strategy S2: n2 = 61) the corresponding cost/graft was 424 euros. Logistic regression analysis showed that Viaspan was better than Eurocollins solution (ebeta = 0.437; P = 0.05) in preventing DGF. Overall, S2 was less expensive than S1, from the hospital's perspective. The mean difference per patient was 278 euros, which amounts to a saving of 2% of the total cost per renal transplantation. For rinsing and preserving kidney grafts Belzer solution is therefore preferable to Eurocollins solution.

Oxygen carriers ("blood substitutes").

(1) A number of oxygen carriers, or "blood substitutes", are undergoing clinical trials. One product (Hemopure(R)) was recently licensed for use in South Africa. Another, (Hemolink(tm) may soon be approved for marketing in Canada. (2) Most trials of oxygen carriers have focused on their use in surgery, primarily as a way to minimize the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. (3) The benefits of these products in comparison with other blood conservation technologies and with allogeneic blood transfusion must be determined. (4) The safety and cost-effectiveness of these products, and the patient populations that would benefit most from their use require further study.

[Functional and economic impact of the use of Wisconsin University conservation solution versus Eurocollins in relation to the period of cold ischemia in renal transplantation of cadaveric donor]. / Impacto funcional y económico de la utilización de la solución de conservación de la Universidad de Wisconsis frente Eurocollins en relación al tiempo de isquemia fría en trasplante renal de donante cadáver.

Comparison of the effect of the Wisconsin University (WU) conservation solution in the graft's functional evolution and survival, and its cost-benefit relationship versus the Eurocollins (EC) solution with regard to cold ischaemia duration in a series of 142 consecutive adults renal transplantations from corpse donor, removed with beating heart. Of 142 kidneys, 92 (64.7%) were kept in WU and 50 (35.2%) in EC. Of the WU group, 62 (67.3%) kidneys were transplanted after a cold ischaemia of under 24 hours and 30 (32.6%) after cold ischaemia of more than 24 hours. In the EC group, 23 (46%) were kept in cold ischaemia for an interval shorter than or equal to 24 hours and 27 (54%) for more than 24 hours. Incidence of initial graft dysfunction (IGD) was greater in the EC groups (65% and 78%) versus the WU groups (39% and 50%), the difference being statistically significant (p). The graft function, as indicated by the creatinine levels was always better in the WU groups. There was a decreased need for complementary dialysis sessions, less days of oliguria and shorter hospitalization in the WU groups (p). There were no significant differences in the four series with regard to rejection episodes, cyclosporin-related nephrotoxicity, and vascular and urinary tract complications. All of which turn cost-effective the higher cost per litre of the WU versus the EC solution. Graft survival at 12 and 24 months was also significantly (p) higher for grafts kept in WU. This paper presents the results obtained in the analysis of our transplanted patients. In our experience, the WU solution allows better conservation of renal grafts, with less IGD and better graft survival at 12 and 24 months. These results turn cost-effective the higher cost per litre of the WU versus the EC solution.

The cost-effectiveness of preservation with UW and EC solution for use in cadaveric kidney transplantation in the case of single kidney donors.

University of Wisconsin (UW) solution is now commonly used as a single-flush solution during multiorgan procurement for effective preservation of all intraabdominal organs including the kidney. Many kidneys from single kidney donors are still preserved in Eurocollins solution and the question is whether preservation in UW solution is more cost-effective. A European randomized multicenter trial was organized by the Department of Surgery of Leiden University in close cooperation with Eurotransplant to study the efficacy of UW solution as compared with EC solution. On the basis of this trial we found that at three months after transplant 92.4% of the patients in the UW group had a functioning graft in comparison with 88.4% in the EC group (similar figures after one year were 88.2% and 82.5%, P approximately 0.04), while health care expenditure during these first three months was on average US$ 700 lower for the UW group than for the EC group, taking into account the price difference in the preservation fluids. The long-term benefits of using UW solution as compared with EC solution were conservatively estimated at US$ 7000 per patient reflecting the additional expenses for dialysis in the EC group. We concluded that the extra costs of using UW solution instead of EC solution (US$ 230 per kidney) can be easily earned back within three months and that the long-term savings of such a strategy are considerable. Moreover, the health status of patients in the UW group is expected to be better on the average than in the EC group. Simply reacting to the price tag of the UW solution may be penny-wise but pound-foolish.