**4. Risk factors for PRS**

388 Liver Transplantation – Basic Issues

Table 2. (continued) Reported Incidence of PRS \*Transplant technique: conventional inferior vena cava anastomosis versus piggyback anastomosis\*\*Sequence of reperfusion: initial hepatic artery revascularization versus initial portal vein revascularization. *Abbreviations: CVP: central venous pressure, HTK: histidine-triptophan-ketoglutarate solution, ICU: intensive care* 

Acosta F et al.

Acosta F et al.

Acosta F et al.

Garutti M et al.

Jugan E et al.

 1992

 58

 France

Prospective Study

 20.0%

without VVB)

(No difference between with and


 1997

 94

 Spain

Retrospective Chart Review

28.7%

Response to IVC clamp


 1999

 71

 Spain

Retrospective Chart Review


Transplant technique


 1999

 41

 Spain

Retrospective Chart Review


Preemptive Atropine Treatment


 1999

 32

 Spain

Retrospective Chart Review


Preemptive Phenylephrine Treatment


*unit, IVC: inferior vena cava, MELD: models for end stage liver disease, UW: university of* 

*Wisconsin solution, VVB: veno-venous bypass*

Ayanoglu et al.

Nanashima et al.

Chui A K et al.

 2000

 321

 Australia

Retrospective Chart Review

12.8%

Cold Ischemia Time

Hyperkalemia

 2001

 93

 Australia

Retrospective Chart Review

29.0%



 2003

 145

 Turkey

Retrospective Chart Review

48.9%


Long Anhepatic Period, Higher Calcium

Requirement, Lower CVP

Moreno et. al.

 2006

 30

 Spain

Randomized Prospective Study

36% (HAR) 42.5% (PVR)

Sequence of Reperfusion\*\*


Well-established risk factors and recognized mechanisms associated with PRS include: i) volume status of the recipient before reperfusion, ii) myocardial depression due to embolization of cold preservation solution into the systemic circulation, and iii) release of vasoactive pro-inflammatory factors originating in activated Kupffer cells of the postischemic liver graft.
