{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02004008016032064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004008016032064128, 'mean_word_length': 5.484848484848484, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Analysis of Clinical Efficacy and Cost between University of Wisconsin Solution and Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate

worldwide standard for the perfusion and preservation of abdominal organs. UW solution has a low osmolarity and contains colloid and free radical scavengers (glutathione, allopurinol, and adenosine). Recently a preservation solution known as histidine-tryptophanketoglutarate (HTK) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for preservation of the liver, kidneys, pancreas, and heart. HTK was originally developed in the 1970s by Bretschneider for cardioplegia. HTK has a lower osmolarity than UW solution, a lower concentration of electrolytes, and a strong histidine buffer system that helps increase the osmotic effect of mannitol. In recent years, some clinical trials of the 2 solutions have been done, and some organ procurement organizations have switched from UW solution to HTK. In this article, we examine recent studies that compared the 2 solutions and seek to provide evidence for the safe use of each in the clinical area of organ preservation. In recent years, discussion has increased about the new preservation solution HTK and its abilities in organ preservation as compared with UW solution. HTK has many advantages over UW solution. Each solution has its own advantages with specific organs. The question Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and cost between University of Wisconsin solution and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate