1. Context
2. Evidence Acquisition
2.1. Data Sources and Search Design
2.2. Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection
2.3. Data Extraction and Management
2.4. Risk of bias and Quality Assessment
2.5. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Search Results
3.2. Characteristics of the Included Studies
| Study | Year | Country or Region | Size (N) | Age | Male Gender | Category of Strategy | Agent or Technique | DGF (Int. vs. Con.) | Effectiveness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Int. | Con. | Int. | Con. | Int. | Con. | |||||||
| Frei et al. (48) | 1990 | Germany | 65 | 64 | 41 ± 11 | 42 ± 12 | 39 (60) | 38 (59) | CCB | Diltiazem | 11% vs. 39%c | Yes |
| Pollak et al. (19) | 1993 | USA | 58 | 58 | 41.5 ± 1.6 | 41.5 ± 1.9 | 35 (60) | 43 (74) | Antioxidant | rh-SOD | NA | No |
| Rabl et al. (20) | 1993 | Austria | 14 | 16 | 41.56 ± 14.14 | 43 ± 9.86 | 22 (73.4) | Antioxidant | Omnibionta | NA | Yes | |
| Land et al. (21) | 1994 | Germany | 81 | 96 | 45.4 ± 12 | 45.6 ± 13 | 47 (58) | 67 (70) | Antioxidant | rh-SOD | 18.5% vs. 33.4%c | Yes |
| Salmela et al. (30) | 1999 | Europe | 131 | 131 | 48 | 45.1 | 83 (63.4) | 89 (67.9) | Innate Inhibition | Enlimomab | 31% vs. 26% | No |
| Goggins et al. (31) | 2003 | USA | 27 | 31 | 50 ± 12 | 51 ± 10 | 11 (41) | 16 (52) | Innate inhibition | Thymoglobulin | 14.8% vs. 35.5%c | Yes |
| Fontana et al. (22) | 2005 | Italy | 12 | 14 | 44 ± 13 | 44 ± 15 | 5 (41.7) | 10 (71.4) | Antioxidant | Fenoldopam | NA | No |
| Shoskes et al. (23) | 2005 | USA | 14 - 14 | 15 | 52.5-46 | 44 | 7 (50) - 7 (50) | 11 (71) | Antioxidant | Curcumin and quercetin | 0% - 0% vs. 14.3% | Yes |
| Basu et al. (24) | 2007 | Austria | 8 | 8 | 56.4 ± 9.5 | 11 (68.8) | Antioxidant | Propofol | NA | Yes | ||
| Nguan et al. (49) | 2008 | Canada | 23 | 23 | 48 ± 15 | 49 ± 13 | 13 (56.5) | 13 (56.5) | CCB | Verapamil | 39% vs. 39% | Yes |
| Moers et al. (51) | 2009 | Europe | 336 | 336 | 53 (11 - 79) | 52 (2 - 79) | NA | NA | Organ storage | Machine perfusion | 20.8% vs. 26.5%c | Yes |
| Schnuelle et al. (54) | 2009 | Europe | 227 | 260 | 52.8 ± 12.7 | 52.0 ± 12.4 | 133 (58.6) | 164 (63.1) | Donor management | Dopamine | 24.7% vs. 35.4%c | Yes |
| Kainz et al. (55) | 2010 | Austria-Hungary | 238 | 217 | 49.6 ± 14.4 | 49.2 ± 14.0 | 162 (68.1) | 140 (64.5) | Donor management | Methylprednisolone | 22% vs. 25% | No |
| Othman et al. (38) | 2010 | Egypt | 20 | 20 | 32 ± 9 | 34 ± 11 | 17 (85) | 17 (85) | Anti-inflammatory | Normal saline | 0% vs. 0% | Yes |
| Martinez et al. (39) | 2010 | France | 51 | 53 | 60 ± 7.7 | 58.9 ± 9.5 | 34 (66.7) | 30 (56.6) | Anti-inflammatory | EPO-β | 32% vs. 38.5% | No |
| Brauer et al. (50) | 2010 | Germany | 100 | 100 | 52 | 47 | 65 (65) | 66 (66) | CCB | Prostaglandin | 20% vs. 20% | No |
| Sorbello et al. (25) | 2010 | Italy | 40 - 40 - 40 | 20 | 56.4 ± 12.5 | 54.5% | Antioxidant | NAC | 22.5% - 7.5% - 22.5% vs. 50% | No | ||
| Danilovic et al. (26) | 2011 | Brazil | 38 | 36 | 50.7 ± 11.8 | 48.8 ± 11.1 | 13 (34.2) | 20 (55.6) | Antioxidant | NAC | 55.3% vs. 72.3%c | Yes |
| Gaber et al. (32) | 2011 | USA | 9 | 6 | 38 ± 13.2 | 54.7 ± 12.8 | 6 (66.7) | 5 (83.3) | Innate inhibition | YSPSL | 41% vs. 20% | No |
| Stegall et al. (33) | 2011 | USA | 26 | 51 | 48.6 ± 12.5 | 48.4 ± 11.5 | 5 (19.2) | 11 (21.6) | Innate inhibition | Eculizumab | 7.7% vs. 41%c | Yes |
| Hafer et al. (40) | 2012 | Germany | 44 | 44 | 53.6 ± 1.8 | 49.8 ± 1.6 | 25 (56.8) | 26 (59.1) | Anti-inflammatory | rHuEPO | 22.7% vs. 31.8% | No |
| Requiao-Moura et al. (34) | 2012 | Brazil | 97 | 112 | 45.2 ± 12.9 | 44.7 ± 14.4 | 49 (50.5) | 61 (54.4) | Innate inhibition | Thymoglobulin | 63.9% vs. 55.3% | Yes |
| Sureshkumar et al. (41) | 2012 | USA | 36 | 36 | 58 ± 11 | 56 ± 13 | 19 (53) | 20 (56) | Anti-inflammatory | EPO-α | 41.7% vs. 47.2% | No |
| Kim et al. (42) | 2013 | South Korea | 30 | 30 | 44 ± 12 | 46 ± 12 | 17 (56.7) | 21 (70) | Anti-inflammatory | Plasmalyte | 10% vs. 3.4% | Yes |
| Ojeda-Cervantes et al. (27) | 2013 | Mexico | 10 | 10 | 31.5 (24.8 - 37.5) | 32 (23.3 - 43.8) | 4 (40) | 6 (60) | Antioxidant | Spironolactone | 30% vs. 10% | Yes |
| Cannon et al. (52) | 2013 | USA | 13293 | 13293 | 53.4 ± 12.8 | 53.4 ± 12.9 | NA | NA | Organ storage | Machine Perfusion | 21% vs. 29%c | Yes |
| Kim et al. (44) | 2014 | South Korea | 30 | 30 | 42 (34 - 52) | 44 (33 - 51) | 15 (50) | 11 (36.7) | Conditioning | RiPoC | 3% vs. 0% | No |
| Wszola et al. (53) | 2014 | Poland | 16 - 10 | 9 - 27 | 50 ± 16 - 39.7 ± 10 | 53.1 ± 8 - 41.6 ± 12 | 8 (50) - 6 (60) | 5 (56) - 16 (59) | Organ storage | Machine Perfusion | 31% - 20% vs. 56% - 37% | Yes |
| Wu et al. (45) | 2014 | China | 24 | 24 | 40.6 ± 11.6 | 39.7 ± 10.2 | 12 (50) | 15 (62.5) | Conditioning | RiPoC | 0% vs. 13% | Yes |
| MacAllister et al. (46) | 2015 | Europe | 102 - 103 - 102 | 99 | 47.6 ± 15.1-45.9 ± 14.2-45.3 ± 15.3 | 46.8 ± 15.1 | 71 (72.4)-65 (65.7) - 73 (73.7) | 58 (61.1) | Conditioning | RIPC | 2.4% vs. 5.4% | No |
| Orban et al. (56) | 2015 | France | 82 | 78 | 44.6 ± 15.5 | 50.5 ± 13.3 | 51 (62) | 56 (76) | Donor management | NAC | 33% vs. 25.4% | No |
| Sahraei et al. (28) | 2015 | Iran | 33 - 19 | 32 | 37.23 ± 16.53-36.90 ± 16.71 | 36.17 ± 17.06 | 16 (49) - 12 (63) | 20 (63) | Antioxidant | NAC | 12.1% - 15.8% vs. 21.9% | No |
| Hatem et al. (43) | 2017 | UK | 77 | 63 | 47 ± 11.7 | 42 ± 11.4 | 53 (68.8) | 39 (61.9) | Anti-inflammatory | Aspirin | NA | No |
| Diuwe et al. (35) | 2017 | Poland | 47 | 47 | 47.1 ± 14 | 51.9 ± 13.8 | 33 (70.2) | 32 (68.1) | Innate inhibition | Etanercept | 23.4% vs. 23.4% | No |
| Krogstrup et al. (47) | 2017 | Europe | 109 | 113 | 58.1 (49.5 - 65.0) | 61.4 (49.4 - 66.6) | 65 (60) | 69 (61) | Conditioning | RIC | 33% vs. 35% | No |
| Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke et al. (29) | 2017 | Netherlands | 20 - 18 | 19 | 51.5 ± 10.4 - 48.8 ± 15.4 | 52 ± 11.5 | 8 (40) - 11 (61) | 8 (42) | Antioxidant | Propofol | 0% - 11% vs. 5% | Yes |
| Jordan et al. (36) | 2018 | USA | 35 | 35 | 57.66 ± 7.74 | 58.14 ± 11.18 | 20 (57.14) | 22 (62.86) | Innate inhibition | C1-INH | 44% vs. 60% | No |
| Kaabak et al. (37) | 2018 | Russia | 29 | 28 | 7.6 ± 5.2 | 8.3 ± 3.9 | 16 (55.2) | 14 (50) | Innate inhibition | Eculizumab | 0% vs. 10.7% | Yes |
Abbreviations: CCB, calcium-channel blocker; C1-INH, C1-inhibitor; Con., control; DGF, delayed graft function; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; EPO-α, erythropoietin alpha; EPO-β, erythropoietin beta; Int., intervention; NAC, N-acetyl-cysteine; rh-SOD, recombinant human superoxide dismutase; rHuEPO, recombinant human erythropoietin; RIC, remote ischemic conditioning; RIPC, remote ischemic preconditioning; RiPoC, remote ischemic post-conditioning; UK, United Kingdom; USA, the United States of America; YSPSL or rPSGL-Ig, recombinant P-selectin glycoprotein ligand IgG fusion protein.
aThe intervention was considered effective, if P value was significant for at least one outcome.
bThe values are expressed as mean ± SD, median (IQR), or No. (%).
cThe primary outcome, DGF, was significantly different between intervention and control groups.
3.3. Risk of Bias and Quality Assessment
| Study | Random Sequence Generation (Selection Bias) | Allocation Concealment (Selection Bias) | Selective Reporting (Reporting Bias) | Blinding of Participants and Personnel (Performance Bias) | Blinding of Outcome Assessment (Detection Bias) | Incomplete Outcome Data (Attrition Bias) | Other Bias | AHRQ Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frei et al. (48) | U | H | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Pollak et al. (19) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Fair |
| Rabl et al. (20) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Land et al. (21) | U | U | U | L | L | U | U | Poor |
| Salmela et al. (30) | U | U | U | U | L | U | L | Poor |
| Goggins et al. (31) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Fontana et al. (22) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Shoskes et al. (23) | U | U | U | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Basu et al. (24) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Nguan et al. (49) | H | H | U | H | H | U | U | Poor |
| Moers et al. (51) | L | L | U | U | U | U | L | Poor |
| Schnuelle et al. (54) | L | H | U | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Kainz et al. (55) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | Good |
| Othman et al. (38) | L | L | U | L | H | U | L | Poor |
| Martinez et al. (39) | U | H | U | L | L | L | L | Poor |
| Brauer et al. (50) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Sorbello et al. (25) | U | U | U | U | U | U | L | Poor |
| Danilovic et al. (26) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Fair |
| Gaber et al. (32) | L | U | U | L | L | L | L | Fair |
| Stegall et al. (33) | U | U | U | U | L | U | H | Poor |
| Hafer et al. (40) | L | L | U | L | L | L | H | Poor |
| Requiao-Moura et al. (34) | H | H | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Sureshkumar et al. (41) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Kim et al. (42) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Ojeda-Cervantes et al. (27) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Cannon et al. (52) | L | U | U | U | L | L | H | Poor |
| Kim et al. (44) | L | L | H | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Wszola et al. (53) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Wu et al. (45) | U | U | U | U | L | U | U | Poor |
| Orban et al. (56) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Fair |
| MacAllister et al. (46) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | Good |
| Sahraei et al. (28) | L | L | U | U | U | L | L | Poor |
| Hatem et al. (43) | H | H | U | U | U | U | H | Poor |
| Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke et al. (29) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Fair |
| Krogstrup et al. (47) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | Good |
| Diuwe et al. (35) | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | Poor |
| Jordan et al. (36) | L | L | H | L | L | U | L | Poor |
| Kaabak et al. (37) | L | L | U | L | L | U | L | Fair |
Abbreviations: AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; H, high; L, low; U, unclear.



