Preservation solutions used during abdominal transplantation: Current status and outcomes

Table 3 Selected clinical studies involving renal preservation solutions

Ref.	Solution	Cases	Patient survival	Graft survival
UW solution vs HTK solution
Lynch et al[60]	UW vs HTK	Living donor = 950 (UW 475, HTK 475)	No diff (1 yr)	No diff (1 yr)
		Deceased donor = 634	(living or deceased donors)	(Living or deceased donors)
		(UW 317, HTK 317)
de Boer et al[61]	UW vs HTK	611 (UW 297, HTK 314)	----	No diff (1 yr)
				(UW 81%, HTK 83%)
Klaus et al[62]	UW vs HTK	51 (UW 27, HTK 24)	No diff (1 yr)	No diff (1 yr)
			(UW 84% vs HTK 86%)	(UW 78%, HTK 79%)
UW solution vs CEL solution
Montalti et al[64]	UW vs CEL	50 (UW 25, CEL 25)	No diff (1 yr)	No diff (1 yr)
			(UW 100%, CEL 100%)	(UW 96%, CEL 91.8%)
				P value not stated
Faenza et al[23]	UW vs CEL	187 (UW 88, CEL 99)	No diff (2 yr)	No diff (2 yr)
			(UW 100%, CEL 100%)	(UW 75%, CEL 84%)
				P value not stated
Pedotti et al[54]	UW vs CEL	441 (UW 269, CEL 172)	No diff (1 yr)	No diff (1 yr)
			(UW 97.7%, CEL 99.4%)	(UW 91%, CEL 94.2%)
			P value not stated	P value not stated
EC solution vs HTK solutions
de Boer et al[61]	EC vs HTK	569 (EC 277, HTK 292)	----	No diff (1 yr)
				(EC 78%, HTK 80%)
				P value not stated

Diff: Difference; UW: University of Wisconsin; CEL: Celsior; HTK: Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate; EC: Euro-Collins.