Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238

See all formats and pricing
Volume 38, Issue 11 (Nov 2000)


Assessment of Non-Heart-Beating Donor (NHBD) Kidneys for Viability on Machine Perfusion

Shlokarth Balupuri / Pamela Buckley / Mostafa Mohamed / Chris Cornell / David Mantle / John Kirby / Derek M. Manas / David Talbot
Published Online: 2005-06-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.164


The shortage of organs has resulted in renewed interest in organs from non-heart-beating donors (NHBD). Viability assessment of such organs may reduce the incidence of delayed graft function and primary nonfunction. In Phase III of the NHBD programme, introduction of machine perfusion enabled the assessment of these marginal donors. Since then the graft survival has been 88.4% compared with the previous phase where machine perfusion or viability assessment was not done (45.5%). The parameters used were total glutathione S-transferase (GST) in the perfusate, the intrarenal vascular resistance (IRVR) and flow characteristics over time.

Methods: All NHBD kidneys were machine perfused through a locally developed perfusion system. The viability was assessed by serial measurements of the above-mentioned parameters.

Results: Forty-two local NHBD kidneys were retrieved and one kidney was imported, of which 19 donors (i.e. 38 kidneys) were of the uncontrolled (category II) donors. After viability assessment on machine perfusion; two kidneys were discarded due to positive tests for syphilis, four kidneys had high total GST levels, five kidneys due to high IRVR and poor flow characteristics and one did not flush on retrieval. Three kidneys were exported after viability tests. In 28 NHBD kidney recipients, immediate graft function was seen in two kidneys, 22 (84.6%) developed delayed graft function. One kidney had primary non-function, and two recipients lost their grafts, due to chronic rejection and renal vein thrombosis. There were two deaths, unrelated to transplantation. Graft survival was achieved in 88.4% (23/26 graft survival in phase III) of cases.

Conclusion: Machine perfusion and assessment of NHBD kidneys has been successfully introduced to the Newcastle NHBD programme. This approach, using renal transplants from largely category II donors produced a success rate of 88.4% which was significantly better than the phase II period (45.5%) of the program p=0.023, Fisher 2 tail test).

About the article

Published Online: 2005-06-01

Published in Print: 2000-11-12

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2000.164. Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

R. Cabello Benavente, C. Hernández Fernández, E. Lledó García, D. Rodríguez Martínez, and J.F. del Cañizo López
Actas Urológicas Españolas, 2008, Volume 32, Number 1, Page 75
F.J. Burgos, A. Alcaraz, I. Castillón, M. gonzález martín, E. LledÓ, R. Matesanz, R. Marcén, P. Montañés, and J. Pascual
Actas Urológicas Españolas, 2002, Volume 26, Number 10, Page 731
Shawn D. St. Peter, Charles J. Imber, Inigo Lopez De Cenarruzabeitia, and Peter J. Friend
Transplantation Reviews, 2002, Volume 16, Number 1, Page 51
V Třeška, V Kuntscher, D Hasman, P Neprasová, J Kobr, J Racek, L Trefil, and O Hes
Transplantation Proceedings, 2002, Volume 34, Number 8, Page 3057
Muhammed A. Gok, Maurice Pelzers, Jan F.C. Glatz, Brian K. Shenton, Pamela E. Buckley, Robert Peaston, Chris Cornell, Dave Mantle, Naeem Soomro, Bryon C. Jaques, Derek M. Manas, and David Talbot
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2003, Volume 338, Number 1-2, Page 33
Oleg Reznik, Andrej Skvortsov, Igor Loginov, Alexey Ananyev, Sergey Bagnenko, and Yan Moysyuk
Clinical Transplantation, 2011, Volume 25, Number 4, Page 511
Shawn D St Peter, Charles J Imber, and Peter J Friend
The Lancet, 2002, Volume 359, Number 9306, Page 604
Corinne Antoine, Frédéric Brun, Alain Tenaillon, and Bernard Loty
Néphrologie & Thérapeutique, 2008, Volume 4, Number 1, Page 5
B. M. Doorschodt, M. C. J. M. Schreinemachers, M. Behbahani, S. Florquin, J. Weis, M. Staat, and R. H. Tolba
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2011, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 1051
Stefan G. Tullius, Hans-Dieter Volk, and Peter Neuhaus
Transplantation, 2001, Volume 72, Number 8, Page 1341
B. de Vries, M. G. J. Snoeijs, L. von Bonsdorff, L. W. Ernest van Heurn, J. Parkkinen, and W. A. Buurman
American Journal of Transplantation, 2006, Volume 6, Number 11, Page 2686
Muhammed A. Gok, Aftab A. Bhatti, John Asher, Ajay Gupta, Brian K. Shenton, Helen Robertson, Naeem A. Soomro, and David Talbot
Transplant International, 2005, Volume 18, Number 10, Page 1142
The Journal of Urology, 2004, Volume 172, Number 6, Page 2331
Jesse D. Schold, Bruce Kaplan, Richard J. Howard, Alan I. Reed, David P. Foley, and Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche
American Journal of Transplantation, 2005, Volume 5, Number 7, Page 1681
Muhammed A Gok, Ajay Gupta, Peter Olschewski, Aftab Bhatti, Brian K Shenton, Helen Robertson, Naeem Soomro, and David Talbot
Clinical Transplantation, 2004, Volume 18, Number 5, Page 541

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in