ライフサイエンスコーパス: delayed graft function

1 loss caused by thrombosis and a high risk of delayed graft function.

2 donor, post-kidney transplantation SSIs, and delayed graft function.

3 antation renal biopsies (PIB) as markers for delayed graft function.

4 unction and the second functioned well after delayed graft function.

5 ansplant/de novo donor-specific antibody and delayed graft function.

6 ascular thrombosis, especially when there is delayed graft function.

7 index higher than 27 kg/m, and occurrence of delayed graft function.

8 terial occlusion in transplanted grafts with delayed graft function.

9 ents receiving renal transplants at risk for delayed graft function.

10 lomerular filtration rate, and occurrence of delayed graft function.

11 help in understanding the pathophysiology of delayed graft function.

12 ar ejection fraction, low serum albumin, and delayed graft function.

13 tomy was associated with no mortality and no delayed graft function.

14 r sensitization, paucity of live donors, and delayed graft function.

15 There was no delayed graft function.

16 f hospital stay, time to return to work, and delayed graft function.

17 There were no surgical complications or delayed graft function.

18 of acute rejection but not the incidence of delayed graft function.

19 n from older donors and deceased donors, and delayed graft function.

20 with 100% 2-year graft survival and without delayed graft function.

21 reperfusion injury (IRI) is a major cause of delayed graft function.

22 g for registry-based risk factors, including delayed graft function.

23 ocesses could lead to decreased incidence of delayed graft function.

24 is (with a functioning graft) and 2 cases of delayed graft function.

25 stricture, urine leak, hernia formation, and delayed graft function.

26 GP1 was associated with early graft loss and delayed graft function.

27 s are frequently associated with a period of delayed graft function.

28 r 6-month eGFR only among recipients without delayed graft function.

29 There was no delayed graft function (0%).

30 ces between induction groups for outcomes of delayed graft function, 1-year acute rejection, 1-year B

31 of immediate function and significantly less delayed graft function (12.2% vs. 21.2%).

32 7% SIR-NLD, P=0.04) and a lower incidence of delayed graft function (21% SIR-LD vs. 39% SIR-NLD, P<0.

33 ients of a living donor had a higher rate of delayed graft function (23.6% versus 18.7%; odds ratio,

34 Incidence of delayed graft function (25.8% vs 28.6%, P = 0.12), and 1

35 ilure/rejection (16.7% vs 16.8%; P = 0.897), delayed graft function (29.97% vs 29.36%; P = 0.457) or

36 The incidence of delayed graft function (38% vs. 26%), cold ischemia time

37 f graft loss (9.2% and 10.2%, respectively), delayed graft function (40.4% and 44.5%), and death (4.3

38 more than 50 years (30%), and patients with delayed graft function (47%).

39 R and other causes of allograft dysfunction; delayed graft function (54+/-7.8 micromol/L), urinary tr

40 recipients experienced a higher frequency of delayed graft function (58% versus 27%).

41 .85 kg), but there was a higher incidence of delayed graft function (7 of 11 vs. 1 of 16; P=0.002).

42 acute rejection (12% vs. 16%; P<0.0001) and delayed graft function (8% vs. 23%; P<0.0001).

43 In patients with delayed graft function, a clinical manifestation of IRI,

44 cyte antigens mismatches, immunosuppression, delayed graft function, acute rejection [AR]), previous

45 Delayed graft function affected 45% of the DCD recipient

46 Donor pretreatment with NAC does not improve delayed graft function after kidney transplantation.

47 onors significantly reduced the incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplantation.

48 -reperfusion (I/R) is a major contributor to delayed graft function after renal transplantation.

49 , donor age more than 50 years (HR=1.86) and delayed graft function after retransplant (HR=1.95).

50 reduces the frequency of acute rejection and delayed graft function after transplantation.

51 s before function returned and two developed delayed graft function; all transplanted livers and panc

52 c criteria significantly reduced the rate of delayed graft function among recipients.

53 No patients experienced delayed graft function and 10 (5%) developed acute rejec

54 After SLKT, 39% experienced delayed graft function and 20.7% had RAF.

55 ents of elderly DCD kidneys experienced more delayed graft function and acute rejection than did elde

56 associated with adverse outcomes, including delayed graft function and biopsy-proven acute rejection

57 Machine perfusion techniques have decreased delayed graft function and could improve graft survival.

58 iod could help to ameliorate the severity of delayed graft function and could provide a path to using

59 ion injury IRI results in increased rates of delayed graft function and early graft loss.

60 Thirteen (40%) recipients had delayed graft function and four lost the grafts.

61 preservation period reduces the incidence of delayed graft function and improves graft survival.

62 on injury (IRI) significantly contributes to delayed graft function and inflammation, leading to graf

63 ieu in high-acuity CLKT recipients increases delayed graft function and kidney allograft failure.

64 ieu in high acuity CLKT recipients increases delayed graft function and kidney allograft failure.

65 ning a mechanism underlying the link between delayed graft function and long-term allograft failure.

66 (null) cell frequencies were associated with delayed graft function and lower estimated glomerular fi

67 tch (RXM) demonstrated a higher incidence of delayed graft function and of acute rejection and graft

68 ed to within a few hours and correlates with delayed graft function and organ failure.

69 The 3- and 12-month treatment failure rates, delayed graft function and renal function, and patient a

70 Patients with delayed graft function and those with GFR < 30 mL/min at

71 ferior outcome that was not significant, and delayed graft function and warm ischaemic time had no ef

72 GFR), and incidence of acute rejection (AR), delayed graft function and/or graft loss at 2 years post

73 t graft dysfunction (primary nonfunction and delayed graft function) and were an independent risk fac

74 y outcomes were discard, cold-ischemia time, delayed graft function, and 1-year graft loss.

75 e than 65 years, five to six HLA mismatches, delayed graft function, and acute rejection were indepen

76 Ischemic damage is the most common cause of delayed graft function, and although it is known that ti

77 afts is associated with tubular cell injury, delayed graft function, and an increased incidence of ac

78 We found that the degree of HLA mismatch, delayed graft function, and AR were the only significant

79 ultivariate analysis revealed recipient age, delayed graft function, and BMI >30 to be independent ri

80 tibody >10%, congestive heart failure (CHF), delayed graft function, and cellular rejection.

81 ass index, waiting time, cold ischemic time, delayed graft function, and coronary risk factors showed

82 5- and 10-year graft survival, incidence of delayed graft function, and estimated glomerular filtrat

83 r GFR at 18 months independent of rejection, delayed graft function, and ethnicity.

84 iteria donors, race, cytomegalovirus status, delayed graft function, and immunologic risks were simil

85 ded patient and graft survival, incidence of delayed graft function, and incidence and severity of bi

86 idney transplant recipients, 31% experienced delayed graft function, and mean+/-SD 6-month eGFR was 5

87 included 1-year graft and patient survival, delayed graft function, and need for posttransplant dial

88 splantation), a significantly higher rate of delayed graft function, and significantly higher levels

89 g public insurance, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, and steroid withdrawal; in these

90 owing variables were recorded: demographics; delayed graft function; AR at 3, 6, and 12 months; time

91 of Foley catheter, ureteral stent, age, and delayed graft function are independent risk factors for

92 lly important in ischemia-reperfusion injury/delayed graft function as well as in acute and chronic a

93 ere found between patients with immediate or delayed graft function at D7.

94 comorbidities (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.04-3.86), delayed graft function at the time of discharge (OR, 1.6

95 Xenon protects allografts against delayed graft function, attenuates acute immune rejectio

96 ath (DCD) kidneys suffer a high incidence of delayed graft function attributable to warm ischemia and

97 ted that C1-INH treatment may reduce IRI and delayed graft function, based on decreased requirements

98 sirolimus permits a window of recovery from delayed graft function before the introduction of reduce

99 There was no difference in the incidence of delayed graft function between CS and MP (32/51 (62.8%)

100 DCD kidneys (vs. static storage) may reduce delayed graft function but has no effect on long-term or

101 Donors with AKI are more likely to undergo delayed graft function but have similar long-term outcom

102 eptance in the match-run was associated with delayed graft function but not all-cause allograft failu

103 th donor thrombi were more likely to exhibit delayed graft function, but graft function at 1 and 2 ye

104 s were younger and less likely to experience delayed graft function compared with recipient of ECD ki

105 s: donor AKI (stage 2 or greater), recipient delayed graft function (defined as dialysis in first wee

106 Primary outcomes were delayed graft function, defined as dialysis during the f

107 Delayed graft function developed in 1 C1-INH subject and

108 Delayed graft function developed in 79 recipients of kid

109 In addition to providing overall results for delayed graft function (DGF) (requirement for dialysis i

110 RL) may increase the incidence of or prolong delayed graft function (DGF) after cadaveric renal trans

111 Current methods for rapid detection of delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

112 me studies have found an association between delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

113 Delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

114 Delayed graft function (DGF) after renal transplantation

115 idneys, which contribute to a higher risk of delayed graft function (DGF) after transplantation.

116 Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) ex

117 dered to contribute to the occurrence of the delayed graft function (DGF) and chronic graft failure.

118 response gene (MYD) 88, are associated with delayed graft function (DGF) and could be used as biomar

119 njury (IRI) to renal grafts, contributing to delayed graft function (DGF) and episodes of acute immun

120 determine the effect of recipient obesity on delayed graft function (DGF) and graft survival after re

121 nd cause of death influence the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) and graft survival; however

122 inators between the profiles of kidneys with delayed graft function (DGF) and immediate graft functio

123 ed in renal allograft recipients at risk for delayed graft function (DGF) and immunologic rejection.

124 rolonged ischemia is a known risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and its interaction with do

125 Delayed graft function (DGF) and pretransplant donor-spe

126 Delayed graft function (DGF) and slow graft function (SG

127 Delayed graft function (DGF) and slow graft function (SG

128 nction (IGF), slow graft function (SGF), and delayed graft function (DGF) and the drop in estimated g

129 elial damage in the renal graft and leads to delayed graft function (DGF) and to an early loss of per

130 hemia time (CIT) with resulting increases in delayed graft function (DGF) and transplant-related cost

131 IRI usually manifests as delayed graft function (DGF) and, in severe cases, resul

132 atric kidney transplant recipients developed delayed graft function (DGF) between 2000 and 2010.

133 Delayed graft function (DGF) caused by ischemia/reperfus

134 ns experienced nearly twice the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) compared with heart-beating

135 Patient-level risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) have been well described.

136 ted nomogram designed to predict the risk of delayed graft function (DGF) in a given transplant.

137 is study examined the association of PP with delayed graft function (DGF) in all (n=94,709) deceased

138 luate the efficacy of Mirococept in reducing delayed graft function (DGF) in deceased donor renal tra

139 tributing to ischemia-reperfusion injury and delayed graft function (DGF) in human kidney transplant

140 ther there is an association between sex and delayed graft function (DGF) in patients who received de

141 We analyzed the risk of developing delayed graft function (DGF) in recipients of DCD and do

142 Delayed graft function (DGF) in renal transplant is asso

143 Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication of

144 Delayed graft function (DGF) is a risk factor for acute

145 Delayed graft function (DGF) is an established complicat

146 Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with an incre

147 Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with inferior

148 Delayed graft function (DGF) is frequently observed in r

149 Delayed graft function (DGF) is the need for dialysis in

150 Prolonged duration of delayed graft function (DGF) may be associated with adve

151 Delayed graft function (DGF) occurs in 15 to 25% (range,

152 ee regimens benefited patients regardless of delayed graft function (DGF) or early acute rejection st

153 Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) rates were similar between

154 Patients without delayed graft function (DGF) receiving MMF had significa

155 In organ transplantation, delayed graft function (DGF) remains a major concern in

156 of the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) versus delayed graft function (DGF) to predict graft survival i

157 l using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression,

158 al using Cox regression, acute rejection and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression,

159 Delayed graft function (DGF) was defined as first week d

160 Delayed graft function (DGF) was strongly associated wit

161 , inflammation, and MHC II expression, while delayed graft function (DGF) was therefore reduced.

162 Delayed graft function (DGF) was twice as common in reci

163 ded criteria donors (ECD) and development of delayed graft function (DGF) were also evaluated.

164 Rates of delayed graft function (DGF) were significantly lower in

165 Delayed graft function (DGF), a common complication afte

166 ysis can aid in predicting the occurrence of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and

167 antation and evaluated one of these outcomes-delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, graft or

168 The rates of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, readmissi

169 We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and pa

170 cardiac death (DCD) exhibit higher rates of delayed graft function (DGF), and DCD livers demonstrate

171 nset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT), delayed graft function (DGF), and graft failure.

172 erm postoperative outcome, the occurrence of delayed graft function (DGF), and long-term graft surviv

173 of this policy on cold ischemia time (CIT), delayed graft function (DGF), and transplant survival wa

174 Delayed graft function (DGF), defined as dialysis in the

175 Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) leading to delayed graft function (DGF), defined by the United Netw

176 Delayed graft function (DGF), graft failure, and patient

177 Topics included the development of IRI and delayed graft function (DGF), histology and biomarkers,

178 Recipients with delayed graft function (DGF), however, often have a subo

179 eceiving renal transplant centers focused on delayed graft function (DGF), patient and allograft surv

180 utcomes included graft loss, renal function, delayed graft function (DGF), patient death, and the inc

181 We classified graft recovery as delayed graft function (DGF), slow graft function (SGF),

182 expression changes in kidney allografts with delayed graft function (DGF), which often follows ischem

183 vent renal ischemia-reperfusion injuries and delayed graft function (DGF).

184 ion, antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), and delayed graft function (DGF).

185 ated with more primary nonfunction (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF).

186 The primary outcome was delayed graft function (DGF).

187 expression occurred in organs with prolonged delayed graft function (DGF).

188 pient and donor BMI and its correlation with delayed graft function (DGF).

189 transplant, and were more likely to develop delayed graft function (DGF).

190 on was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function (DGF).

191 The primary study endpoint was the delayed graft function (DGF).

192 ing 2435 recipients, 756 of whom experienced delayed graft function (DGF).

193 ts with serum biomarker measurements, 26 had delayed graft function (DGF; hemodialysis within 1 week

194 nd to assess their performance in predicting delayed graft function (DGF=dialysis requirement during

195 days, early events (acute rejection [AR] and delayed graft function [DGF] before day 90) were recorde

196 eased donor kidney transplant [DDKT] without delayed graft function [DGF] hazard ratio: 24.634.447.9,

197 e higher rates of primary graft nonfunction, delayed graft function, discard, and retrieval associate

198 y ischemia detection in porcine kidneys with delayed graft function early after transplantation.

199 tive predictor of poor KT outcomes including delayed graft function, early hospital readmission, immu

200 in the DKT group, although the incidence of delayed graft function, early rejection treatment, and g

201 Recipient presensitization, delayed graft function, early rejection, and higher crea

202 ve, deceased donor, expanded donor criteria, delayed graft function, elevated panel reactive antibody

203 " was compared with the following endpoints: delayed graft function, estimated glomerular filtration

204 , there was no effect of arteriosclerosis on delayed graft function, estimated glomerular filtration

205 urrence and duration of functionally defined delayed graft function (fDGF) in donation after circulat

206 nt of six microRNAs had predictive value for delayed graft function following kidney transplantation.

207 This kidney had delayed graft function for a period of 26 days, and the

208 nd point was a composite of acute rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death.

209 Renal transplant recipients who experience delayed graft function have increased risks of rejection

210 tes, being on a ventilator, hospitalization, delayed graft function, hepatocellular carcinoma, and in

211 y obese patients may be at increased risk of delayed graft function, higher postoperative complicatio

212 GAL concentrations associated with recipient delayed graft function (highest versus lowest NGAL terti

213 Dopamine's success in reducing kidney delayed graft function highlights the opportunity for ad

214 ents is associated with an increased risk of delayed graft function; however, this does not compromis

215 age (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P=0.03), and delayed graft function (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P=0.06

216 cute rejection (HR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.23-1.76), delayed graft function (HR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71), and

217 human leukocyte antigen match, occurrence of delayed graft function, immunosuppressive regimen, weigh

218 These results may imply why delayed graft function in DCD kidneys does not have the

219 that the use of MP reduces the incidence of delayed graft function in donation after circulatory dea

220 t of diabetes after transplantation, and for delayed graft function in kidney only.

221 rmia in the donor safely reduced the rate of delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients w

222 perfusion injury (IRI) is the major cause of delayed graft function in renal allografts.

223 alondialdehyde (MDA) levels, correlates with delayed graft function in renal transplant recipients.

224 The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney recipients, which w

225 g deprivation of oxygen were associated with delayed graft function in the recipient.

226 Delayed graft function in transplant recipients increase

227 The odds of delayed graft function increased for kidneys with multip

228 Delayed graft function increased substantially, possibly

229 , cytomegalovirus D+/R-, cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, induction with antithymocyte glo

230 ury leading to acute renal failure (ARF) and delayed graft function is an important problem in organ

231 ugh the incidence of primary nonfunction and delayed graft function is higher with organs obtained fr

232 ors before organ recovery has on the rate of delayed graft function is unclear.

233 While ATG may improve delayed graft function, it may also be associated with h

234 plantation was associated with an absence of delayed graft function, low acute rejection rates, and h

235 r a significant increase in those developing delayed Graft Function (miR-9: P = 0.068, mIR-10a: P = 0

236 as consistently elevated in those developing Delayed Graft Function (n = 165 samples from 33 patients

237 (O.R. 0.15, 95% C.I. 0.03-0.91, P=0.04) and delayed graft function (O.R. 4.49, 95% C.I. 1.67-36.56,

238 Delayed graft function occurred in 23% of No RIPC and 28

239 Delayed graft function occurred in 31% of renal grafts.

240 Delayed graft function occurred in 44.6% and 75.4% of AK

241 Delayed graft function occurred less frequently in the d

242 /m were associated with an increased risk of delayed graft function (odds ratio [95% confidence inter

243 ion) and were an independent risk factor for delayed graft function (odds ratio, 2.152; 95% confidenc

244 n in renal transplant recipients at risk for delayed graft function or acute rejection (n=278), TMG w

245 ntly higher than proportions attributable to delayed graft function or acute rejection.

246 AKI but provide limited value in predicting delayed graft function or early allograft function after

247 presented with TE, which was not related to delayed graft function or estimated glomerular filtratio

248 This did not translate into higher delayed graft function or graft loss rates between the 2

249 s at engraftment and 3 and 6 months, without delayed graft function or interval rejection, and we con

250 nth (OR 0.62 per 10 ml/min/1.73 m, P<0.001), delayed graft function (OR 11.5, P = 0.02), and a SRL-ba

251 egree) was not significantly associated with delayed graft function (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P =

252 ce interval [CI]: 1.09-90.58; p = 0.041) and delayed graft function (OR: 3.40; 95% CI: 1.08-10.73; p

253 dysfunction, variably referred to as slow or delayed graft function, or in the most extreme cases, pr

254 ensitized, receive public insurance, develop delayed graft function, or undergo steroid withdrawal.

255 ents not receiving steroids experienced less delayed graft function (p = 0.01) and pretransplant dial

256 Delayed graft function (P<0.0001), rejection (P<0.0001),

257 recipient BMI greater than 30 (P=0.0012) and delayed graft function (P=0.0041).

258 ne (P=0.0001), 1-year creatinine (P=0.0015), delayed graft function (P=0.007), total human leukocyte

259 isk factor for early graft loss (P=0.04) and delayed graft function (P=0.04).

260 oven acute rejection, graft loss, or death), delayed graft function, patient and graft survival rates

261 tly higher body mass index and older donors, delayed graft function, prevalence of metabolic syndrome

262 ement for mechanical circulatory support for delayed graft function, primarily in recipients with ven

263 Secondary outcomes included delayed graft function, primary nonfunction, serum creat

264 Relationship of AKI with delayed graft function/primary nonfunction (DGF/PNF), es

265 The odds of initial graft dysfunction (delayed graft function/primary nonfunction) were signifi

266 The delayed graft function rate (DGF), defined as the requir

267 Finally, delayed graft function rate was significantly higher in

268 Early patients had lower delayed graft function rates (Early 19.2%, Normal 32%, L

269 fusion might help to decrease posttransplant delayed graft function rates and to increase the donor p

270 Delayed graft function rates were lowest in EBK (17.9%),

271 warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1

272 The recipients experienced delayed graft function requiring hemodialysis which was

273 for age, gender, deceased donor transplant, delayed graft function, tacrolimus and exposure to antib

274 sufficient peri-transplant ischemia to cause delayed graft function than from allografts with slow or

275 matched, though the 12-week cohort had more delayed graft function than their 24-week counterparts (

276 (CI) is a risk factor for the development of delayed graft function that predicts reduced 5-year kidn

277 Although there was a higher incidence of delayed graft function, there was no significant differe

278 DCD, the primary nonfunction rate was 5% and delayed graft function was 25%.

279 The incidence of delayed graft function was 5% and 35% (P<0.01), whereas

280 Delayed graft function was also higher in uDCD than in c

281 The incidence of delayed graft function was higher in ECD (68.1% vs. 58.4

282 The incidence of delayed graft function was lower in the alemtuzumab grou

283 Delayed graft function was more common among recipients

284 Delayed graft function was more frequent in NP vs. P (10

285 Delayed graft function was more frequent in the SK group

286 Occurrence and length of delayed graft function was not significantly different b

287 ed after cardiac death of the donors, but no delayed graft function was observed.

288 For death-censored kidney graft survival, delayed graft function was the strongest negative predic

289 The primary endpoint, delayed graft function, was analyzed by "intention-to-tr

290 ger pretransplantation dialysis vintage, and delayed graft function were associated with higher ED us

291 only recipients with both a positive RXM and delayed graft function were at significantly higher risk

292 Patients developing delayed graft function were excluded.

293 longer in DKT (22.2+/-9.7 hr), but rates of delayed graft function were lower (29.3%) compared to EC

294 and living donor kidney transplants without delayed graft function were randomized to receive predni

295 h after transplantation and the incidence of delayed graft function were similar in both groups.

296 splantation, sex, graft type, rejection, and delayed graft function, were not significant.

297 Delayed graft function, which is reported in up to 50% o

298 patients at high risk for acute rejection or delayed graft function who received a renal transplant f

299 patients at high risk for acute rejection or delayed graft function who received a renal transplant f

300 ltivariate model of CCL2, recipient age, and delayed graft function yielded an AUC 0.87 for predictio