A Comparison of OPO Pulsatile Machine Preservation Practices and Results

Abstract

Context Kidney preservation has been performed by either ice (static) or machine pulsatile perfusion. Ice storage is simple, with only 1 methodology. Machine perfusion, on the other hand, is accomplished using multiple methodologies. This article delineates the different methodologies of pumping centers throughout the country. Objective Pulsatile machine perfusion is again being viewed as the preservation method of choice for kidneys from Non—Heart-beating cadaver donors and cadaver kidneys from marginal donors. To develop indices to predict the viability of cadaver kidneys for transplant, a review of the organ procurement organizations, specific perfusion techniques, and a comparison of the delayed graft function and graft survival rates were considered. Methods A survey, asking for specifics on perfusion parameters, pulsatile machine perfusion experience, and criteria for perfusion implementation and graft survival results, was mailed to all organ procurement organizations in the United States. Results Of the 44 centers that responded to the survey, 12 used pulsatile machine perfusion (11 used the Waters perfusion machine), 6 pumped marginal cadaver kidneys, and the remaining 6 pumped all cadaver kidneys. Minimum perfusion criteria, pulse rates, perfusate composition, pressures, renal resistance, and renal pressure and flow were considered. Vasodilators and other machine additives were used to improve flow. The variance in each center's number of cadaver kidneys pumped each year, as well as the differences in pump times, was noted. Conclusion Twelve centers use pulsatile machine perfusion. A variety of techniques are used to perform pulsatile machine perfusion, but 11 of 12 have less delayed graft function than those programs employing ice storage preservation.