ArticleTransplantation direct2026
Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Donation After Circulatory Death and its Impact on Postreperfusion Syndrome in Liver Transplantation Compared With Brain-dead Donors: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Transplantation direct, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) increases graft availability but may carry higher perioperative risk, which in situ normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) may mitigate by reducing ischemia-reperfusion injury. Evidence remains limited regarding NRP impact on PRS during liver transplantation (LT). The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of PRS and early postoperative outcomes between cDCD LT with NRP and donation after brain death (DBD) LT. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center observational study comparing cDCD LT with NRP versus DBD LT. The primary endpoint was PRS (≥30% mean arterial pressure decrease for ≥1 min within 5 min of reperfusion). Secondary endpoints included early allograft dysfunction, acute kidney injury (AKI), rejection, biliary/vascular complications, and survival. Associations between graft type and outcomes were assessed using logistic regression (binary) and linear regression (continuous), and Cox models (time-to-event), with multivariable adjustment for clinically relevant covariates. Results: Among 106 recipients (cDCD n = 47; DBD n = 59), PRS occurred 27 patients (25.5% versus 25.4%). Graft type was not associated with PRS after adjustment (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.10; Conclusions: In a standardized program using routine NRP, cDCD LT did not increase PRS risk and achieved early outcomes comparable to DBD LT. These findings suggest clinical feasibility and short-term safety of Maastricht III protocols incorporating NRP.
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.