The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Machine Perfusion Versus Cold Storage for the Preservation of Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Hypothermic machine perfusion may improve outcome after transplantation of kidneys donated after cardiac death (DCD), but no sufficiently powered prospective studies have been reported. Because organ shortage has led to an increased use of DCD kidneys, we aimed to compare hypothermic machine perfusion with the current standard of static cold storage preservation. METHODS: Eighty-two kidney pairs from consecutive, controlled DCD donors 16 years or older were included in this randomized controlled trial in Eurotransplant. One kidney was randomly assigned to machine perfusion and the contralateral kidney to static cold storage according to computer-generated lists created by the permuted block method. Kidneys were allocated according to standard rules, with concealment of the preservation method. Primary endpoint was delayed graft function (DGF), defined as dialysis requirement in the first week after transplantation. All 164 recipients were followed until 1 year after transplantation. RESULTS: Machine perfusion reduced the incidence of DGF from 69.5% to 53.7% (adjusted odds ratio: 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.89; P = 0.025). DGF was 4 days shorter in recipients of machine-perfused kidneys (P = 0.082). Machine-perfused kidneys had a higher creatinine clearance up to 1 month after transplantation (P = 0.027). One-year graft and patient survival was similar in both groups (93.9% vs 95.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermic machine perfusion was associated with a reduced risk of DGF and better early graft function up to 1 month after transplantation. Routine preservation of DCD kidneys by hypothermic machine perfusion is therefore advisable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Machine Perfusion or Cold Storage in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation
Moers, C., Smits, J. M., Maathuis, M.-H. J., Treckmann, J., van Gelder, F., Napieralski, B. P., van Kasterop-Kutz, M., van der Heide, J. J. H., Squifflet, J.-P., van Heurn, E., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0802289 · Cited by 1,020
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jochmans, I., Moers, C., Smits, J. M., Leuvenink, H. G. D., Treckmann, J., Paul, A., Rahmel, A., Squifflet, J.-P., van Heurn, E., Monbaliu, D., Ploeg, R. J., & Pirenne, J.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 252
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 756-764
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2122076120
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Machine Perfusion Versus Cold Storage for the Preservation of Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181ffc256
- The paper
- Jochmans, I., Moers, C., Smits, J. M., Leuvenink, H. G. D., Treckmann, J., Paul, A., Rahmel, A., Squifflet, J.-P., van Heurn, E., Monbaliu, D., Ploeg, R. J., & Pirenne, J. (2010). Machine Perfusion Versus Cold Storage for the Preservation of Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181ffc256
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.