ArticleTransplantation2026
Ischemia-free Liver Transplantation: 7-y Experience From a Single-center Cohort in China.
Article in Transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIschemia-free liver transplantation (IFLT) is a novel approach designed to completely eliminate ischemia/reperfusion injury, whereas normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) unavoidably exposes grafts to ischemia/reperfusion injury. The study aims to evaluate postoperative complications and patient survival in IFLT compared with NMP.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 220 recipients with donation after brain death liver transplantation between 2017 and 2024. Propensity score matching was used for matching in a 1:1 ratio between the IFLT group and the NMP group. The primary endpoint was early allograft dysfunction (EAD), with secondary endpoints including postoperative complications, comprehensive complication index (CCI), and patient survival.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, there were 72 patients who received IFLT and 72 who received NMP. The incidence of EAD (15.30% versus 44.40%, P < 0.001) and the CCI at 1 y posttransplant (26.74 [95% confidence interval, 20.87-32.61] versus 38.67 [95% confidence interval, 30.95-46.39], P = 0.039) in IFLT were significantly lower than in NMP. There was a higher 1-y posttransplant patients survival rate (95.57% versus 86.11%) and graft survival rate (95.57% versus 86.11%) in the IFLT group. The overall patient survival rate was significantly higher in the IFLT group than in the NMP group (hazard ratio, 0.2731; log-rank P = 0.0084). Among extended criteria donor recipients, IFLT demonstrated superior outcomes compared with NMP, with a significantly lower incidence of EAD, reduced CCI at 1 y posttransplant, and improved 1-y posttransplant patient survival.
conclusionsAmong patients with end-stage liver diseases, IFLT significantly reduced EAD and improved 1-y posttransplant patient survival compared with NMP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.