Functional Results of Renal Preservation in Hypothermic Pulsatile Machine Perfusion Versus Cold Preservation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermic pulsatile machine perfusion (HPMP) decreases the rate of delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney grafts, compared with cold storage. However, it is not clear its use in the different subgroups of grafts. The objective was to review systematically all studies with better methodologic quality that compare HPMP versus cold storage. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. The sources were Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, and Ovid. All randomized controlled trials that compared HPMP versus cold storage in renal grafts from human donors were considered. Outcomes analyzed were: percentage of DGF, primary nonfunction (PNF), and graft function in each group and for the different types of grafts, brain-death donors (DBDs), and different subgroups of donors after circulatory death (DCDs). RESULTS: Twelve clinical trials, out of 9,867 titles, were included. HPMP improved DGF overall, as well as in DBDs and DCDs. The relative risks [RRs] were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.61-0.92), respectively. There were no differences in PNF overall and for DBDs or DCDs. The RRs were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.73-1.16), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.22-2.73), and 1.13 (95% CI, 0.73-1.77), respectively. However, analysis with the better quality studies, overall RR for PNF was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39-0.96). There were no differences between the graft function at 3 months after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: HPMP moderately improved the DGF results in grafts from cadaver donors of all types. HPMP could improve the PNF in grafts from DBDs, although more clinical trials are needed to prove that.

[The use of ureteral stents and catheters in renal transplantation.] / Empleo de catéteres y stents ureterales en el trasplante renal.

Mayor urological complications, fistulae and stenosis, mainly affect the vesicoureteral anastomosis and present in the early post-transplant period. The systematic use of ureteral catheters keeps selecbeing controversial with many groups using them only selectively depending on the existence of pretransplant or intraoperative risk factors. METHODS: We performed a bibliographic review through automatized search in the Medline bibliographic database, as the main bibliographic source, and also in Clinical Key. The search strategy included the following terms: "stent" AND "kidney transplantation". RESULTS: The bibliographic search revealed the protective effect of the use of ureteral catheters in the transplant ureteroneocystostomy for both development of fistulae (RR 0.29, 0.12 to 0.74, p=0.009) and stenosis (RR 0.27, 0.09 to 0.81, p=0.02). The use of catheters in immunosuppressed patients was associated with significant increase of the incidence of post-transplant urinary tract infections (RR 1.49 IC 95% 1.04 to 2.15, p=0.03) that was prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole directed against pneumocistis carinii. The rates of permeability of self-expandable metallic stents and extra-anatomic bypasses in the treatment of ureteral stenosis after renal transplantation in high surgical risk patients or after the failure of previous surgery, has varied from 50% to 100%, with a limited number of patients included. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ureteral catheters in the extravesical ureteroneocystostomy reduces the incidence of anastomotic complications. Surgery is the treatment of choice of post-transplant ureteral stenosis. The use of metallic stents and extra-anatomic bypasses should be limited to complex ureteral stenosis when primary therapy has failed, in high surgical risk patients or chronic graft dysfunction.