The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial

B. Koneru, A. Shareef, G. Dikdan, K. Desai, K. M. Klein, B. Peng, R. H. Wachsberg, A. N. De La Torre, M. Debroy, A. Fisher, D. J. Wilson, A. K. Samanta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While animal studies show that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is beneficial in liver transplantation (LT), evidence from few smaller clinical trials is conflicting. From October 2003 to July 2006, 101 deceased donors (DD) were randomized to 10 min IPC (n = 50) or No IPC (n = 51). Primary objective was efficacy of IPC to decrease reperfusion (RP) injury. Both groups had similar donor risk index (DRI) (1.54 vs. 1.57). Aminotransferases on days 1 and 2 were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in IPC recipients. In multivariate analyses, IPC had an independent effect only on day 2 aspartate transferase. Prothrombin time, bilirubin and histological injury were similar in both groups. IPC had no significant effect on plasma TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 in the donor and TNF-α and IL-6 in the recipient. In contrast, IPC recipients had a significant rise in systemic IL-10 levels after RP (p < 0.05) and had fewer moderate/severe rejections within 30 days (p = 0.09). Hospital stay was similar in both groups. One-year patient and graft survival in IPC versus No IPC were 88% versus 78% (p = 0.1) and 86 versus 76% (p = 0.25), respectively. IPC increases RP injury after DDLT, an 'IPC paradox'. Other potential benefits of IPC are limited. IPC may be more effective in combination with other preconditioning regimens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2788-2796
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
Volume7
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2007

Fingerprint

Ischemic Preconditioning
Liver Transplantation
Tissue Donors
Clinical Trials
Reperfusion Injury
Interleukin-10
Interleukin-6
Prothrombin Time
Graft Survival
Transferases
Transaminases
Bilirubin
Aspartic Acid
Reperfusion

Keywords

  • Deceased donor
  • Ischemia/reperfusion injury
  • Ischemic preconditioning
  • Liver transplantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology

Cite this

The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial. / Koneru, B.; Shareef, A.; Dikdan, G.; Desai, K.; Klein, K. M.; Peng, B.; Wachsberg, R. H.; De La Torre, A. N.; Debroy, M.; Fisher, A.; Wilson, D. J.; Samanta, A. K.

In: American Journal of Transplantation, Vol. 7, No. 12, 12.2007, p. 2788-2796.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Koneru, B, Shareef, A, Dikdan, G, Desai, K, Klein, KM, Peng, B, Wachsberg, RH, De La Torre, AN, Debroy, M, Fisher, A, Wilson, DJ & Samanta, AK 2007, 'The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial', American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 2788-2796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02009.x
Koneru, B. ; Shareef, A. ; Dikdan, G. ; Desai, K. ; Klein, K. M. ; Peng, B. ; Wachsberg, R. H. ; De La Torre, A. N. ; Debroy, M. ; Fisher, A. ; Wilson, D. J. ; Samanta, A. K. / The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial. In: American Journal of Transplantation. 2007 ; Vol. 7, No. 12. pp. 2788-2796.
@article{305ecea8cf964b6e9f66c9ebc6b3f0f3,
title = "The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial",
abstract = "While animal studies show that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is beneficial in liver transplantation (LT), evidence from few smaller clinical trials is conflicting. From October 2003 to July 2006, 101 deceased donors (DD) were randomized to 10 min IPC (n = 50) or No IPC (n = 51). Primary objective was efficacy of IPC to decrease reperfusion (RP) injury. Both groups had similar donor risk index (DRI) (1.54 vs. 1.57). Aminotransferases on days 1 and 2 were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in IPC recipients. In multivariate analyses, IPC had an independent effect only on day 2 aspartate transferase. Prothrombin time, bilirubin and histological injury were similar in both groups. IPC had no significant effect on plasma TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 in the donor and TNF-α and IL-6 in the recipient. In contrast, IPC recipients had a significant rise in systemic IL-10 levels after RP (p < 0.05) and had fewer moderate/severe rejections within 30 days (p = 0.09). Hospital stay was similar in both groups. One-year patient and graft survival in IPC versus No IPC were 88{\%} versus 78{\%} (p = 0.1) and 86 versus 76{\%} (p = 0.25), respectively. IPC increases RP injury after DDLT, an 'IPC paradox'. Other potential benefits of IPC are limited. IPC may be more effective in combination with other preconditioning regimens.",
keywords = "Deceased donor, Ischemia/reperfusion injury, Ischemic preconditioning, Liver transplantation",
author = "B. Koneru and A. Shareef and G. Dikdan and K. Desai and Klein, {K. M.} and B. Peng and Wachsberg, {R. H.} and {De La Torre}, {A. N.} and M. Debroy and A. Fisher and Wilson, {D. J.} and Samanta, {A. K.}",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02009.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "2788--2796",
journal = "American Journal of Transplantation",
issn = "1600-6135",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ischemic preconditioning paradox in deceased donor liver transplantation - Evidence from a prospective randomized single blind clinical trial

AU - Koneru, B.

AU - Shareef, A.

AU - Dikdan, G.

AU - Desai, K.

AU - Klein, K. M.

AU - Peng, B.

AU - Wachsberg, R. H.

AU - De La Torre, A. N.

AU - Debroy, M.

AU - Fisher, A.

AU - Wilson, D. J.

AU - Samanta, A. K.

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - While animal studies show that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is beneficial in liver transplantation (LT), evidence from few smaller clinical trials is conflicting. From October 2003 to July 2006, 101 deceased donors (DD) were randomized to 10 min IPC (n = 50) or No IPC (n = 51). Primary objective was efficacy of IPC to decrease reperfusion (RP) injury. Both groups had similar donor risk index (DRI) (1.54 vs. 1.57). Aminotransferases on days 1 and 2 were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in IPC recipients. In multivariate analyses, IPC had an independent effect only on day 2 aspartate transferase. Prothrombin time, bilirubin and histological injury were similar in both groups. IPC had no significant effect on plasma TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 in the donor and TNF-α and IL-6 in the recipient. In contrast, IPC recipients had a significant rise in systemic IL-10 levels after RP (p < 0.05) and had fewer moderate/severe rejections within 30 days (p = 0.09). Hospital stay was similar in both groups. One-year patient and graft survival in IPC versus No IPC were 88% versus 78% (p = 0.1) and 86 versus 76% (p = 0.25), respectively. IPC increases RP injury after DDLT, an 'IPC paradox'. Other potential benefits of IPC are limited. IPC may be more effective in combination with other preconditioning regimens.

AB - While animal studies show that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is beneficial in liver transplantation (LT), evidence from few smaller clinical trials is conflicting. From October 2003 to July 2006, 101 deceased donors (DD) were randomized to 10 min IPC (n = 50) or No IPC (n = 51). Primary objective was efficacy of IPC to decrease reperfusion (RP) injury. Both groups had similar donor risk index (DRI) (1.54 vs. 1.57). Aminotransferases on days 1 and 2 were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in IPC recipients. In multivariate analyses, IPC had an independent effect only on day 2 aspartate transferase. Prothrombin time, bilirubin and histological injury were similar in both groups. IPC had no significant effect on plasma TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 in the donor and TNF-α and IL-6 in the recipient. In contrast, IPC recipients had a significant rise in systemic IL-10 levels after RP (p < 0.05) and had fewer moderate/severe rejections within 30 days (p = 0.09). Hospital stay was similar in both groups. One-year patient and graft survival in IPC versus No IPC were 88% versus 78% (p = 0.1) and 86 versus 76% (p = 0.25), respectively. IPC increases RP injury after DDLT, an 'IPC paradox'. Other potential benefits of IPC are limited. IPC may be more effective in combination with other preconditioning regimens.

KW - Deceased donor

KW - Ischemia/reperfusion injury

KW - Ischemic preconditioning

KW - Liver transplantation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35748953090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35748953090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02009.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02009.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17949458

AN - SCOPUS:35748953090

VL - 7

SP - 2788

EP - 2796

JO - American Journal of Transplantation

JF - American Journal of Transplantation

SN - 1600-6135

IS - 12

ER -