COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation
The addition of oxygen to machine perfusion has been proposed as a method to support mitochondrial function and ATP synthesis.5 Given that renal tubular epithelial cells, particularly within the proximal tubule, are the primary site of damage in ischaemia–reperfusion injury due to high metabolic dem...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2020-11, Vol.396 (10263), p.1609-1611 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1611 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10263 |
| container_start_page | 1609 |
| container_title | The Lancet (British edition) |
| container_volume | 396 |
| creator | Rogers, Natasha Wyburn, Kate |
| description | The addition of oxygen to machine perfusion has been proposed as a method to support mitochondrial function and ATP synthesis.5 Given that renal tubular epithelial cells, particularly within the proximal tubule, are the primary site of damage in ischaemia–reperfusion injury due to high metabolic demand, oxygen supplementation is a plausible strategy to reduce cellular damage. Ina Jochmans and colleagues7 report the results of an investigator-driven, multicentre study in The Lancet, done by the Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe, comparing HMP with HMPO2 in kidney pairs donated after circulatory death from donors aged 50 years and older. 197 kidney pairs were randomised using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by organ allocation region: one kidney was assigned to HMPO2 and the contralateral kidney to standard HMP. The administration of supraphysiological concentrations of oxygen resulted in fewer severe complications (HMPO2 46 [11%] of 417, 95% CI 8–14 vs HMP 76 [16%] of 474, 13–20; p=0·032), reduced biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes (relative risk reduction 44% [relative risk ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·31–0·98]), and lower rates of graft failure with HMPO2 (three [3%] of 106) compared with HMP (11 [10%] of 106, hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·07–0·95; p=0·028). |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32440-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2463610597</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0140673620324405</els_id><sourcerecordid>2462396243</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-241ad7afabe72536578a7e32c1bd974aac7f041a0544706b9c131e3d11b4bf613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0MtKxDAUgOEgio6jj6AU3Oii48nduhEZvIEy4gXchTQ91UqnGZNW8e3tzKgLN65C4Dsn4Sdkh8KIAlWH90AFpEpztc_ggDPR3-QKGVChRSqFflolg1-yQTZjfAUAoUCukw3OGQPNYUBG48nN7endWdKGytbHSYMfyYufYVL6kPjwbJtkFjBieLdt5ZstslbaOuL29zkkj-dnD-PL9HpycTU-vU4dz3ibMkFtoW1pc9RMciX1kdXImaN5kWlhrdMl9AakEBpUnjnKKfKC0lzkpaJ8SPaXe2fBv3UYWzOtosO6tg36LhomFFcUZKZ7uveHvvouNP3v5orxTDHBeyWXygUfY8DSzEI1teHTUDDzoGYR1MxrGQZmEdTIfm73e3uXT7H4nfop2IOTJcA-x3uFwURXYeOwqAK61hS--ueJL-iegbg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2462396243</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Rogers, Natasha ; Wyburn, Kate</creator><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Natasha ; Wyburn, Kate</creatorcontrib><description>The addition of oxygen to machine perfusion has been proposed as a method to support mitochondrial function and ATP synthesis.5 Given that renal tubular epithelial cells, particularly within the proximal tubule, are the primary site of damage in ischaemia–reperfusion injury due to high metabolic demand, oxygen supplementation is a plausible strategy to reduce cellular damage. Ina Jochmans and colleagues7 report the results of an investigator-driven, multicentre study in The Lancet, done by the Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe, comparing HMP with HMPO2 in kidney pairs donated after circulatory death from donors aged 50 years and older. 197 kidney pairs were randomised using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by organ allocation region: one kidney was assigned to HMPO2 and the contralateral kidney to standard HMP. The administration of supraphysiological concentrations of oxygen resulted in fewer severe complications (HMPO2 46 [11%] of 417, 95% CI 8–14 vs HMP 76 [16%] of 474, 13–20; p=0·032), reduced biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes (relative risk reduction 44% [relative risk ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·31–0·98]), and lower rates of graft failure with HMPO2 (three [3%] of 106) compared with HMP (11 [10%] of 106, hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·07–0·95; p=0·028).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-547X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32440-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33220730</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biopsy ; Blood & organ donations ; Clear cell-type renal cell carcinoma ; Consortia ; Damage ; Double-Blind Method ; Epithelial cells ; Graft rejection ; Grafts ; Ischemia ; Kidney Transplantation ; Kidneys ; Mitochondria ; Organ Preservation ; Oxygen ; Perfusion ; Preservation ; Randomization ; Reference Standards ; Reperfusion ; Risk management ; Risk reduction ; Supplements ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>The Lancet (British edition), 2020-11, Vol.396 (10263), p.1609-1611</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2020. Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-241ad7afabe72536578a7e32c1bd974aac7f041a0544706b9c131e3d11b4bf613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-241ad7afabe72536578a7e32c1bd974aac7f041a0544706b9c131e3d11b4bf613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2462396243?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33220730$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyburn, Kate</creatorcontrib><title>COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation</title><title>The Lancet (British edition)</title><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><description>The addition of oxygen to machine perfusion has been proposed as a method to support mitochondrial function and ATP synthesis.5 Given that renal tubular epithelial cells, particularly within the proximal tubule, are the primary site of damage in ischaemia–reperfusion injury due to high metabolic demand, oxygen supplementation is a plausible strategy to reduce cellular damage. Ina Jochmans and colleagues7 report the results of an investigator-driven, multicentre study in The Lancet, done by the Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe, comparing HMP with HMPO2 in kidney pairs donated after circulatory death from donors aged 50 years and older. 197 kidney pairs were randomised using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by organ allocation region: one kidney was assigned to HMPO2 and the contralateral kidney to standard HMP. The administration of supraphysiological concentrations of oxygen resulted in fewer severe complications (HMPO2 46 [11%] of 417, 95% CI 8–14 vs HMP 76 [16%] of 474, 13–20; p=0·032), reduced biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes (relative risk reduction 44% [relative risk ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·31–0·98]), and lower rates of graft failure with HMPO2 (three [3%] of 106) compared with HMP (11 [10%] of 106, hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·07–0·95; p=0·028).</description><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Blood & organ donations</subject><subject>Clear cell-type renal cell carcinoma</subject><subject>Consortia</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Epithelial cells</subject><subject>Graft rejection</subject><subject>Grafts</subject><subject>Ischemia</subject><subject>Kidney Transplantation</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>Mitochondria</subject><subject>Organ Preservation</subject><subject>Oxygen</subject><subject>Perfusion</subject><subject>Preservation</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Reperfusion</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><subject>Risk reduction</subject><subject>Supplements</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0140-6736</issn><issn>1474-547X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0MtKxDAUgOEgio6jj6AU3Oii48nduhEZvIEy4gXchTQ91UqnGZNW8e3tzKgLN65C4Dsn4Sdkh8KIAlWH90AFpEpztc_ggDPR3-QKGVChRSqFflolg1-yQTZjfAUAoUCukw3OGQPNYUBG48nN7endWdKGytbHSYMfyYufYVL6kPjwbJtkFjBieLdt5ZstslbaOuL29zkkj-dnD-PL9HpycTU-vU4dz3ibMkFtoW1pc9RMciX1kdXImaN5kWlhrdMl9AakEBpUnjnKKfKC0lzkpaJ8SPaXe2fBv3UYWzOtosO6tg36LhomFFcUZKZ7uveHvvouNP3v5orxTDHBeyWXygUfY8DSzEI1teHTUDDzoGYR1MxrGQZmEdTIfm73e3uXT7H4nfop2IOTJcA-x3uFwURXYeOwqAK61hS--ueJL-iegbg</recordid><startdate>20201121</startdate><enddate>20201121</enddate><creator>Rogers, Natasha</creator><creator>Wyburn, Kate</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TT</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8C2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KB~</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201121</creationdate><title>COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation</title><author>Rogers, Natasha ; Wyburn, Kate</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-241ad7afabe72536578a7e32c1bd974aac7f041a0544706b9c131e3d11b4bf613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Blood & organ donations</topic><topic>Clear cell-type renal cell carcinoma</topic><topic>Consortia</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Epithelial cells</topic><topic>Graft rejection</topic><topic>Grafts</topic><topic>Ischemia</topic><topic>Kidney Transplantation</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>Mitochondria</topic><topic>Organ Preservation</topic><topic>Oxygen</topic><topic>Perfusion</topic><topic>Preservation</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Reperfusion</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><topic>Risk reduction</topic><topic>Supplements</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyburn, Kate</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>News PRO</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Lancet Titles</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Newsstand Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rogers, Natasha</au><au>Wyburn, Kate</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation</atitle><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><date>2020-11-21</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>396</volume><issue>10263</issue><spage>1609</spage><epage>1611</epage><pages>1609-1611</pages><issn>0140-6736</issn><eissn>1474-547X</eissn><abstract>The addition of oxygen to machine perfusion has been proposed as a method to support mitochondrial function and ATP synthesis.5 Given that renal tubular epithelial cells, particularly within the proximal tubule, are the primary site of damage in ischaemia–reperfusion injury due to high metabolic demand, oxygen supplementation is a plausible strategy to reduce cellular damage. Ina Jochmans and colleagues7 report the results of an investigator-driven, multicentre study in The Lancet, done by the Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe, comparing HMP with HMPO2 in kidney pairs donated after circulatory death from donors aged 50 years and older. 197 kidney pairs were randomised using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by organ allocation region: one kidney was assigned to HMPO2 and the contralateral kidney to standard HMP. The administration of supraphysiological concentrations of oxygen resulted in fewer severe complications (HMPO2 46 [11%] of 417, 95% CI 8–14 vs HMP 76 [16%] of 474, 13–20; p=0·032), reduced biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes (relative risk reduction 44% [relative risk ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·31–0·98]), and lower rates of graft failure with HMPO2 (three [3%] of 106) compared with HMP (11 [10%] of 106, hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·07–0·95; p=0·028).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33220730</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32440-5</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0140-6736 |
| ispartof | The Lancet (British edition), 2020-11, Vol.396 (10263), p.1609-1611 |
| issn | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2463610597 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Biopsy Blood & organ donations Clear cell-type renal cell carcinoma Consortia Damage Double-Blind Method Epithelial cells Graft rejection Grafts Ischemia Kidney Transplantation Kidneys Mitochondria Organ Preservation Oxygen Perfusion Preservation Randomization Reference Standards Reperfusion Risk management Risk reduction Supplements Transplants & implants |
| title | COMPARE trial: new hope for organ preservation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T23%3A44%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=COMPARE%20trial:%20new%20hope%20for%20organ%20preservation&rft.jtitle=The%20Lancet%20(British%20edition)&rft.au=Rogers,%20Natasha&rft.date=2020-11-21&rft.volume=396&rft.issue=10263&rft.spage=1609&rft.epage=1611&rft.pages=1609-1611&rft.issn=0140-6736&rft.eissn=1474-547X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32440-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2462396243%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2462396243&rft_id=info:pmid/33220730&rft_els_id=S0140673620324405&rfr_iscdi=true |