ライフサイエンスコーパス: DCD

1 DCD DDKT and regional/national imports declined nationwi

2 DCD donors with mild macrosteatosis < 30% can be utilize

3 DCD grafts in particular are associated with ischemic-ty

4 DCD heart transplant outcomes are excellent.

5 DCD hearts stored using a standard preservation solution

6 DCD kidneys with WIT>48 minutes had a higher risk of all

7 DCD rats were subjected to a withdrawal protocol, follow

8 h [DCD]) and three with UR (n = 2 DBD, n = 1 DCD), followed by quantitative analysis by mass spectrom

9 All pigs except for 1 (DCD-SCS-group) survived 4 days.

10 An analysis of 1112 DCD donor LT across all UK transplant centers between 20

11 In total, 441 cases were included: 115 DCD and 326 DBD grafts.

12 al (DBD HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.10; P = 12; DCD HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.58-1.73; P = 1.00).

13 The authors report their experience of 23 DCD heart transplants from 45 DCD donor referrals since

14 n updated cohort (2010-2018), outcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK fro

15 n the COLD group were biopsy findings (38%), DCD warm ischemic time (11%), and prolonged preservation

16 ors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01).

17 perience of 23 DCD heart transplants from 45 DCD donor referrals since 2014.

18 Hearts were retrieved from 33 of 45 DCD donors.

19 Between 2002-2003 and 2011-2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidne

20 NRP was performed on 70 DCD donors from whom 43 livers were transplanted.

21 Urine samples of 74 DCD recipients were analyzed.

22 Among the 12,831 DCD kidneys transplanted, kidneys with WIT</=48 minutes

23 Trends in Region 9 DCD donation increased from 4 unused hearts in 2011, to

24 The option to accept a DCD SLKT became the preferred choice for those with a ME

25 compare the overall outcomes of accepting a DCD SLKT now versus waiting for a DND SLKT in patients w

26 old) undergoing transplantation of a DCD donor liver (Maastricht category III) will be random

27 graft outcomes for pediatric recipients of a DCD kidney.

28 pients listed for HCC of which 91 received a DCD.

29 Children receiving a DCD kidney transplant have good renal allograft survival

30 015; Austria only occasionally transplants a DCD liver; other Eurotransplant countries do not have ac

31 ex where more males were transplanted with a DCD donor (62.7%) vs (48.3%, P = 0.048).

32 alyzing total life years obtained for accept DCD versus do not accept DCD.

33 obtained for accept DCD versus do not accept DCD.

34 Although not accepting DCD SLKT and waiting for DND SLKT is the preferred optio

35 There is a benefit to accepting DCD SLKT for patients with MELD score greater than 30.

36 Eurotransplant countries do not have active DCD programs.

37 n and preventing serious complications after DCD transplantation.

38 An outbreak of A. baumannii emerging after DCD renal transplantation was tracked to understand the

39 ducts leads to lower incidence of NAS after DCD liver transplantation can only be examined in a rand

40 DHOPE in reducing the incidence of NAS after DCD liver transplantation.

41 al setting, although long-term outcome after DCD lung transplantation (LTx) remains largely unknown.

42 ecipients (SRTR), we compared outcomes after DCD in FHF to donation after brain death (DBD) in FHF an

43 sion to end of hepatectomy on outcomes after DCD LT in the United Kingdom.

44 gitudinal gene expression between LD and AKI/DCD revealed 2 clusters, representing 141 differentially

45 found to be differentially expressed in AKI/DCD versus LD.

46 Gene expression in peripheral blood of AKI/DCD recipients offers a novel platform to understand the

47 In the AKI/DCD groups, elevations in gene expression were maintaine

48 All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Ari

49 47 blockade in a syngeneic and an allogeneic DCD rat kidney transplant model.

50 1.032; 95% CI, 1.008-1.056; P = 0.008), and DCD graft (OR 3.913; 95% CI 1.200-12.767; P = 0.024) as

51 7.6%, p = .63; 57.8% vs. 73.2%, p = .27) and DCD-non-FHF (67.9% vs. 72.9%, p = .44; 57.8% vs. 66.6%,

52 imulatory CpG ODN (beating heart control and DCD stimulated with CpG ODN, BST and DST).

53 Beating heart controls and DCD rats were pretreated with vehicle or stimulatory CpG

54 The impact of DGF on DBD and DCD graft survival was evaluated in 6635 kidney transpla

55 lies a differential impact of DGF on DBD and DCD graft survival.

56 e differential impact of DGF between DBD and DCD grafts relates to donor-type specific activation of

57 differentially activated pathways in DBD and DCD grafts.

58 ivalent long-term graft survival for DBD and DCD grafts.

59 P = 0.15) did not differ between the DBD and DCD groups.

60 d equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants.

61 The heart-beating donor- and DCD-NEVLP-groups showed significantly lower aspartate tr

62 donation after brain death (DBD) in FHF and DCD in non-FHF over a 15-year period.

63 79 recipients underwent DCD-FHF, DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF, respectively.

64 val in DCD-FHF are comparable to DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF.

65 Peripheral blood was collected from LD and DCD/AKI recipients before transplant and throughout the

66 CD kidneys in pediatric transplantation, and DCD allocation algorithms may need to be reviewed in vie

67 Donor pigs underwent hypoxic cardiac arrest (DCD) followed by 15 minutes of warm ischemia and resusci

68 , 1.31; 95% CI, 0.62-2.78; P = 0.47) between DCD and DBD pancreas transplants.

69 t source of kidneys for transplantation, but DCD donor transplantation is less common in the United S

70 t multimodal approach to assessing candidate DCD hearts.

71 Although clinical DCD lung, liver, and kidney transplantation are well est

72 nt discussion relays a viewpoint on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

73 DWIT that may arise when performing combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

74 Thirty consecutive DCD LTs were performed prospectively in era II.

75 Most DCD kidneys are from controlled DCD (cDCD; Maastricht category III).

76 donation and exploring methods of converting DCD to DBD donors.

77 Using current DCD criteria, pancreas transplantation is a viable alter

78 ore frequently donation after cardiac death (DCD) (18% vs 7%, P < 0.001), and having a greater donor

79 Increasingly, donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are used in view of the organ donor shortage

80 enal allografts donated after cardiac death (DCD) in a porcine animal model of transplantation.

81 lication after donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidney transplants, but the impact of DGF on graft

82 tcomes of both donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver and kidney transplants are improving.

83 as organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) donors may experience

84 the context of donation after cardiac death (DCD) procurement, impacts short- and long-term outcomes

85 Donation after cardiac death (DCD) to overcome the donor organ shortage is well accept

86 impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) allografts on outcomes following liver transplantat

87 T) between donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts with th

88 Death in donation after circulatory death (DCD) can be defined by the permanent cessation of brain

89 e clinical donation after circulatory death (DCD) cardiac transplantation is being implemented with i

90 and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of

91 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an important source of kidneys for trans

92 ieved from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors is an evolving clinical practice.

93 rafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors remains the high incidence of non-anastomoti

94 donors or donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors subjected to SCS or NEVLP (n = 5/group).

95 controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors suffer a higher incidence of nonfunction, po

96 rafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors who died from opioid overdose is unknown.

97 While donation after circulatory death (DCD) has expanded options for organ donation, many who w

98 rafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) have a higher risk of acute rejection (AR).

99 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation is currently being performed

100 gh rate of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Netherlands.

101 Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) is an alternative to Donation after Brain death (DB

102 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is current clinical practice to increase the donor

103 Organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasingly being used as a means of addressing

104 d Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, b

105 (fDGF) in donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant recipients.

106 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplantation has acceptable renal allogra

107 ngle-organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidneys preserved with HMP with those preserved usi

108 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts are known to be predisposed to primary

109 ility with donation after circulatory death (DCD) may be a promising option to overcome the organ sho

110 rafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) or donation after brain death (DBD) donors.

111 (HOPE) for donation after circulatory death (DCD) or extended criteria donation after brain death (DB

112 to accept donation after circulatory death (DCD) organs as a means of facilitating earlier transplan

113 controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) program and the controversies surrounding it.

114 uncontrolled donors after circulatory death (DCD) protocol restricts donor age to <55 years, no-flow

115 nterest in donation after circulatory death (DCD) to expand donor pool for cardiac transplantation.

116 (DBD) and Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) were included.

117 occur with donation after circulatory death (DCD) would significantly increase the donor pool for liv

118 (40%) from donation after circulatory death (DCD), of which nine were transplanted.

119 rain death (DBD) or after circulatory death (DCD).

120 rve kidneys donated after circulatory death (DCD).

121 on after circulatory determination of death (DCD) increased fourfold in the past decade.

122 th 30 minutes (donation after cardiac death [DCD]30'), 70 minutes (DCD70'), and 120 minutes (DCD120')

123 livers (9 donation after circulatory death [DCD] and 3 from brain-dead donors), median Donor Risk In

124 30, 2015 (donation after circulatory death [DCD] donors).

125 [DBD], n = 8 donors after circulatory death [DCD]) and three with UR (n = 2 DBD, n = 1 DCD), followed

126 ory death (donation after circulatory death [DCD]).

127 ike conventional donation after brain death, DCD organs undergo a period of warm, global ischemia bet

128 en with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) struggle with the acquisition of coordinated motor

129 inuous domain (CD) and discontinuous domain (DCD) structure predictions.

130 from neurologically brain dead (NBD) donors, DCD kidneys had a higher adjusted odds ratio of discard

131 continued absence of brain perfusion during DCD organ recovery.

132 on is warranted if the allocation of elderly DCD grafts to elderly recipients is to be expanded.

133 sion analysis, elderly recipients of elderly DCD kidneys experienced more delayed graft function and

134 sion analysis, elderly recipients of elderly DCD kidneys had a 5-year mortality risk higher than that

135 ipients, 63.8% of those who received elderly DCD kidneys, 45.5% of those who received elderly DBD kid

136 d transplants from 2002 to 2012 with a first DCD kidney.

137 For DCD, the primary nonfunction rate was 5% and delayed gra

138 was similar (94% vs 95%; P = 0.70), but for DCD donor kidneys, DCGS was lower in those allocated via

139 vs 52 mL/min per 1.73 m; P = 0.01), but for DCD kidneys, there was no difference (45 vs 48 mL/min pe

140 tive median CCI was significantly higher for DCD grafts (53.4 vs 47.2; P = 0.041).

141 although the duration of DGF was longer for DCD SLK recipients (20 vs 4 days, P = .01).

142 median follow-up of 50.5 (+/-3.7) months for DCD and 66.8 (+/-1.5) months for DBD.

143 ITBL, is needed to improve the outcomes for DCD grafts.

144 ne if extended cold storage was possible for DCD hearts following NRP and to compare hearts stored us

145 Specific aspects relevant for DCD heart transplantation were analyzed, including anima

146 LT, but the CCI increases significantly for DCD recipients in 6 months after transplantation.

147 tion rate during the index hospital stay for DCD and DBD LT, but the CCI increases significantly for

148 quate function is an acceptable strategy for DCD hearts.

149 hermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE), used for DCD liver grafts, is based on cold perfusion for 1 hour

150 alue of 0.31 quality-adjusted life years for DCD versus DND SLKT).

151 olated from the donors' preserved fluid from DCD (donation after cardiac death) renal transplantation

152 ciated with improved outcomes of livers from DCD donors.

153 ystematically review recipient outcomes from DCD donors and where possible compared these with donor

154 suggest that NRP during organ recovery from DCD donors leads to superior liver outcomes compared to

155 ed, transplantation of hearts retrieved from DCD donors has reached clinical translation only recentl

156 ed from the 81 donors that transitioned from DCD to actual DBD, including 24 heart, 70 liver, 12 sing

157 Twenty-one (1.2%) of these were from DCD donors, 955 (53.9%) from DBD donors, and 796 (44.9%)

158 ith CpG ODN doubled the number of functional DCD hearts at ESHP.

159 symmetry comparison, is applied for further DCD detections.

160 hospital CCI was comparable for both groups (DCD 38.2; DBD 36.7; P = 0.429).

161 and premortem heparin administration improve DCD liver transplant outcomes, thus allowing for the mos

162 This therapy has the potential to improve DCD kidney transplant outcomes in the human setting.

163 In DCD grafts, high levels of miR-505-3p in preservation fl

164 30 to 3.26), whereas there was a decrease in DCD (1.54 to 0.99) due to a large rise in donors who did

165 ignificantly different between IF and DGF in DCD grafts (P < 0.01), but not in DBD grafts.

166 Despite a 3-fold higher incidence of DGF in DCD grafts, large studies show equivalent long-term graf

167 Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcome

168 edict the occurrence and duration of fDGF in DCD kidney transplant recipients.

169 -controlled NEVKP improves renal function in DCD kidney transplantation.

170 of graft thrombosis was 1.67 times higher in DCD organs (95% CI, 1.04-2.67; P = 0.006).

171 aminotransferase was significantly higher in DCD recipients until 48 h after transplant (p < 0.001).

172 As warm ischemic time exposure increased in DCD groups, fewer hearts were functional during EVHP, an

173 ecreases IRI and subsequent tissue injury in DCD renal allografts in a large animal transplant model.

174 ience, both short- and long-term outcomes in DCD lung recipients are comparable to that of DBD lung r

175 pecific activation of resilience pathways in DCD grafts.

176 ivation of resilience-associated pathways in DCD grafts.

177 c-oxaloacetic transaminase, predominantly in DCD tissue.

178 ted after 24 hours of NMP, more prevalent in DCD than DBD tissue.

179 identify all relevant preclinical studies in DCD heart transplantation.

180 0.001), DGF did not impact graft survival in DCD grafts (HR 1.08; P = 0.63).

181 could potentially improve graft survival in DCD kidney transplants.

182 impact of DGF on long-term graft survival in DCD kidneys.

183 -term graft survival and patient survival in DCD-FHF are comparable to DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF.

184 Graft and patient survival in DCD-FHF improved over the study period.

185 One-year graft survival in DCD-FHF was inferior to DBD-FHF (72.9% vs. 83.8%, p = .0

186 However, 3- and 5-year graft survival in DCD-FHF were comparable to DBD-FHF (67.9 vs. 77.6%, p =

187 0-day, 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survivals in DCD LT were 91.2%, 86.5%, 80.9%, and 77.7% (compared wit

188 eded to understand the potential to increase DCD donor transplantation in the United States.

189 We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted out

190 distinguishing features of severely injured DCD hearts.

191 compared to the 5 years following, intended DCD donors increased 292% (1187 to 4652), and intended D

192 ingdom from 2000 to 2014 were separated into DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor

193 Thus, recipients of LD, DCD, and AKI kidneys were studied to provide a more comp

194 Many DCD grafts are discarded because of older donor age or l

195 However, many DCD grafts are discarded because of long warm ischemia t

196 c viability in this rodent model of marginal DCD cardiac donation.

197 To mimic DCD, pig kidneys underwent 0, 30, or 60 min of warm isch

198 nd cold stored for 4 and 18 hours, mimicking DCD organ procurement and conventional preservation.

199 Moreover, more DCD recipients underwent retransplantation for ITBL in t

200 Most DCD kidneys are from controlled DCD (cDCD; Maastricht ca

201 of DCD renal allografts compared to the non-DCD renal allografts and the effects of increased immuno

202 lized as a potential consequence of nonheart DCD donation.

203 These were compared with 187 non-NRP DCD donor livers transplanted at the same two UK centers

204 country's 58 donor service areas, and 25% of DCD kidneys were recovered in only four donor service ar

205 patient outcomes and generalized adoption of DCD in heart transplantation, however, requires further

206 perfusion (NRP) allows in situ assessment of DCD hearts, allowing only acceptable organs to be procur

207 This potential benefit of DCD pancreas donation warrants further study.

208 Consideration of DCD in FHF could help expand the donor pool in this subs

209 vided into 3 equal eras based on the date of DCD LT: era 1 (2003-2006), era 2 (2007-2010), and era 3

210 vel variation in the recovery and discard of DCD kidneys is large.

211 odel, we investigated the AR and function of DCD renal allografts compared to the non-DCD renal allog

212 , these data indicate that implementation of DCD heart transplantation in the United States would imp

213 w that CD47mAb blockade decreased the IRI of DCD kidneys in rat transplant models.

214 The majority of DCD donors who proceeded did so within 30 min from time

215 tic cold storage (SCS) in a porcine model of DCD autotransplantation.

216 d crystalloid perfusion in a canine model of DCD: (1) facilitates aerobic metabolism and resuscitates

217 with preclinical studies in animal models of DCD heart transplantation, to facilitate and promote the

218 there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with mac

219 h 2015, for studies reporting the outcome of DCD pancreas transplants.

220 Of the 74 pairs of DCD kidneys followed for a median of 1.9 years (408 pers

221 Nonetheless, the potential of DCD heart transplantation is being reconsidered, after r

222 romise for improved clinical preservation of DCD and marginal donor hearts.

223 This study showed that preservation of DCD kidneys with HMP is superior to CS.

224 ed by PFC during static cold preservation of DCD livers can better sustain ATP levels, and thereby re

225 ansplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD

226 h U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p <

227 us, it is critical to improve the quality of DCD liver grafts.

228 incidence of graft failure for recipients of DCD grafts, comparing the risk among recipients of organ

229 Recipients of DCD kidneys with DGF experienced a higher incidence of o

230 Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate m

231 obtained between 2008 and 2015, recovery of DCD kidneys varied substantially among the country's 58

232 le-center study of all LT since the start of DCD program (2001-2015).

233 liver transplantation to compare survival of DCD grafts preserved in high-oxygen solution (preoxygena

234 HOPE-treatment of DCD livers resulted therefore in a 5-year tumor-free sur

235 mic injury may safely allow increased use of DCD kidneys with WIT>48 minutes.

236 preconditioning to optimize the viability of DCD hearts for transplantation.

237 gative impact of prolonged HT on outcomes on DCD LT and although HT is 60 minutes or longer is not a

238 n NMP was 11.5 h (range 3.3-22.5 h) with one DCD liver perfused for 22.5 h.

239 between the DCD and DBD groups (P = 0.42) or DCD and LD groups (P = 0.84).

240 evance, as liver grafts from extended DBD or DCD donors carry considerable risks for recipients.

241 ts (>/=18 years) who received a first DBD or DCD kidney during 2002-2012, and categorized them as you

242 ately 26% of those who received young DBD or DCD kidneys had an eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (includi

243 1.2% in patients receiving unperfused DBD or DCD livers, from both centers.

244 intended donation after brain death (DBD) or DCD donors from April 2004 to March 2014.

245 ere less frequently used compared with other DCD grafts (liver, 25.9% versus 29.6%; 95% confidence in

246 pidemic, utilization of anoxic drug overdose DCD donor grafts does not increase the risk of graft fai

247 rences for either outcome between the paired DCD and DBD patients (p = 0.162 and p = 0.519, respectiv

248 Using paired DCD kidney data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialy

249 d by variable acirculatory standoff periods (DCD groups).

250 en during HMP on renal function in a porcine DCD model.

251 ally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years),

252 e world's first series of distantly procured DCD heart transplants.

253 Animals that received DCD grafts preserved in higher oxygenation solution show

254 Overall, 20% of recovered DCD kidneys were discarded, varying from 3% to 33% among

255 le to AR; enhanced immunosuppression reduces DCD-associated AR and improves early allograft function

256 ore transplantation in a clinically relevant DCD model.

257 ited evidence encourages the use of selected DCD kidneys in pediatric transplantation, and DCD alloca

258 With appropriate selection, DCD SLK recipients can have results equivalent to those

259 In this retrospective study, DCD LTx recipients (n = 59) were compared with a cohort

260 Of 8302 successful DCD donors across the United States, 5033 (61%) were bet

261 It has been suggested, however, that DCD organs may have inferior graft and patient survival

262 3-year renal allograft survival between the DCD and DBD groups (P = 0.42) or DCD and LD groups (P =

263 ar renal allograft survival was 95.2% in the DCD group, 87.1% in the DBD group, and 92.9% in the LD g

264 Patient survival is 100% in the DCD group, 98.7% in the DBD group, and 98.9% in the LD g

265 d-Stage Liver Disease score was lower in the DCD SLK group (23 vs 29, P = .01).

266 of biliary complications was observed in the DCD SLK group, with ischemic cholangiopathy being the mo

267 along with elevated MHC-I expression in the DCD transplants receiving low-dose immunosuppression; ho

268 In our rat model of the DCD protocol, we investigate the impact of pretreating d

269 y-clustering algorithm is used to refine the DCD-linker locations.

270 ates aerobic metabolism and resuscitates the DCD heart, (2) provides functional and metabolic recover

271 These results suggest that the DCD renal allograft seems to be more vulnerable to AR; e

272 Therefore, DCD LTx can be considered a safe strategy that significa

273 Three DCD liver recipients developed cholangiopathy, and this

274 2.9% vs. 83.8%, p = .002), but comparable to DCD-non-FHF (72.9% vs. 82.7%, p = .23).

275 milar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis.

276 significantly different between HOPE-treated DCD and unperfused DBD liver recipients at Center A.

277 ts with tumor recurrence in the HOPE-treated DCD cohort (P = 0.002) in Center A.

278 Neither did the graft variables of type (DCD vs DBD), donor age, steatosis, cold ischemic time, p

279 er overall predicted risk for graft loss (UK-DCD-risk score 6 vs 9 points, P < 0.001).

280 Uncontrolled DCD kidneys are an additional source of valuable transpl

281 ied all kidney transplants from uncontrolled DCD between 2007 and 2014 from the French Transplant Reg

282 Organs from uncontrolled DCD donors (uDCDs) have expanded donation in Europe sinc

283 To improve the management of uncontrolled DCD, we tried to identify factors predictive of outcome.

284 Univariate analysis of uncontrolled DCD-specific risk factors showed no-flow time, functiona

285 Patients undergoing DCD LT between 2003 and 2014 were obtained from the Unit

286 of 117, 3437, and 4379 recipients underwent DCD-FHF, DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF, respectively.

287 In a next step, we analyzed unperfused DCD (n = 70) and DBD liver recipients (n = 70), transpla

288 nce rate was also twice higher in unperfused DCD and DBD recipients at the external Center B, despite

289 who had direct experience with unsuccessful DCD and 5 focus groups with professionals involved in th

290 retrospectively identified all successful US DCD solid organ donors from 1/2011 to 3/1/2017, defined

291 There is reluctance to use DCD hearts, due to an inability to precisely identify he

292 ltaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) using DCD donors, however, remains limited.

293 When utilizing DCD donors with moderate macrosteatosis higher rates of

294 s and MELD score of 21 to 30 with DND versus DCD SLKT, respectively).

295 e aim of this study was to determine whether DCD transplantation was associated with poorer cancer-re

296 of graft and patient survival in FHF, while DCD status was only predictive of graft survival.

297 hrombosis was not higher in recipients whose DCD donors were given antemortem heparin (P = 0.62).

298 r body sensors from twenty-one children with DCD, using a 3D motion analysis system, before and after

299 ation via self-organization in children with DCD.

300 able survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age >=60 (aHR: (0.42) 0.52(0.65) , P < .001).