Cochrane · systematic review · CD014685
Machine perfusion in liver transplantation
Tingle, SJ, Dobbins, JJ, Thompson, ER, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
Hepato-BiliaryAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
16
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 12.5%Ungraded 4 · 25%Very low 2 · 12.5%Low 2 · 12.5%Moderate 3 · 18.8%High 3 · 18.8%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) compared with static cold storage (SCS) for preservation of livers prior to transplantation
Population: liver transplant recipients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall participant survival Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | HR 0.91 [0.42, 1.98] | 4 studies · 482 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.91 [0.42, 1.98] | 2 studies · 156 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Graft survival Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | HR 0.45 [0.23, 0.87] | 4 studies · 482 participants | High |
Ischaemic biliary complications total Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.32 [0.12, 0.83] | 2 studies · 326 participants | High |
Ischaemic biliary complications (donated following brain death (DBD)) Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.33 [0.03, 3.19] | 1 study · 170 participants | Ungraded |
Ischaemic biliary complications (donated following circulatory death (DCD)) Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.31 [0.11, 0.92] | 1 study · 156 participants | Ungraded |
Early allograft dysfunction total Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.35 [0.23, 0.53] | 4 studies · 482 participants | High |
Adverse events considered non‐serious Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) vs static cold storage (SCS) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 312 participants | Ungraded |
Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) compared with static cold storage (SCS) for preservation of livers prior to transplantation
Population: liver transplant recipients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall participant survival Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | HR 1.08 [0.31, 3.8] | 1 study · 222 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events (SAEs) Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 522 participants | Ungraded |
Graft survival Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | HR 1.2 [0.44, 3.29] | 2 studies · 522 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ischaemic biliary complications (on protocol imaging) Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.78 [0.27, 2.27] | 1 study · 155 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Early allograft dysfunction Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.4 [0.22, 0.74] | 3 studies · 540 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events considered non‐serious Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) vs static cold storage (SCS) | OR 0.92 [0.54, 1.57] | 1 study · 222 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |