ライフサイエンスコーパス: living donor

1 has proven successful when performed with a living donor.

2 s with alloantibodies against their intended living donor.

3 nsplantation was demonstrated in 2014 with a living donor.

4 ver disease scores and receiving a LT from a living donor.

5 rd criteria deceased donor, the other from a living donor.

6 ients of a standard criteria deceased versus living donor.

7 Six uterus transplants were performed from living donors.

8 sease patients with willing but incompatible living donors.

9 with deceased donors rather than altruistic living donors.

10 cell types that are difficult to obtain from living donors.

11 rapidly expanding to increase the number of living donors.

12 an equivalent type and number of prospective living donors.

13 pede kidney transplantation, especially from living donors.

14 stdonation outcomes in 46 segmental pancreas living donors.

15 on for renal outcomes among African American living donors.

16 n about the long-term glomerular dynamics in living donors.

17 tion and policies to prevent exploitation of living donors.

18 hile safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

19 number vary among kidneys transplanted from living donors.

20 number of organs available from deceased and living donors.

21 nor islets required from either cadaveric or living donors.

22 social network serves as a pool of potential living donors.

23 ransplants, most of which (11) occurred from living donors.

24 Among 4650 living donors, 13.1% were African American and 76.3% wer

25 ssionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%).

26 .4%, with more zero HLA mismatch (8% vs 4%), living donors (26% vs 20%), and lymphodepleting inductio

27 st and second kidney transplants-1021 with a living donor, 532 with a deceased donor-under our RDP pr

28 One thousand four hundred twenty living-donor ABO-incompatible kidney transplants were an

29 of any form of preconditioning therapies in living donor ABOi kidney transplantation on graft and pa

30 studies that described the outcomes of adult living donor ABOi kidney transplantations using any form

31 d increased likelihood of having an approved living donor (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.74; 95% confidenc

32 likely to receive ATG than HCV- recipients (living donor, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.640.770.91;

33 cipient but also affects the recovery of the living donor after partial hepatectomy.

34 y single parathyroidectomy is performed on a living donor also donating a kidney to her sibling.

35 , but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation,

36 he first 3 months of treatment compared with living donor and expanded criteria donor recipients.

37 Partial LT (living donor and split liver transplantation) techniques

38 Eighteen recipients received uteri from living donors and 2 from deceased donors.

39 BK viruria was observed in 15.4% (6/39) of living donors and 8.5% (4/47) of deceased donors of reci

40 f DNA from kidney graft recipients and their living donors and estimated all possible cell surface an

41 hin the range of healthy individuals in both living donors and potential donors.

42 Participation of compatible living donors and recipients in kidney paired donation (

43 tlist registrations, waitlist mortality, and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT

44 ce of preference for type of KT (deceased or living donor) and transplant center location on days to

45 cyte antigen antibodies, cold ischemia time, living donor, and preemptive transplantation.

46 likely to receive ATG than HCV- recipients (living donor, aOR=0.640.770.91; deceased donor, aOR=0.71

47 y be a motivation to explore split livers or living donors as accelerated liver transplantation optio

48 ged to consider expanded criteria donors and living donors, as alternatives to deceased standard crit

49 idelines with respect to obligations owed to living donors, but those guidelines appear to assume tha

50 the needs of both transplant candidates and living donors by separating the advocacy role from the c

51 s for a parameter used to accept or reject a living donor candidate.

52 risk for end-stage renal disease among obese living donors, center-level efforts targeted specificall

53 Given a set of candidate and living donor characteristics, the Markov model provides

54 Among 207 of 222 eligible living donors contacted, 86 (42%) completed the anonymou

55 ger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants.

56 Medically complex living donors demonstrate similar compensatory increase

57 attention to lessons that can be drawn from living donor donation in other countries.

58 In this context, the criteria that govern living donor donations must live up to very demanding st

59 d a comprehensive set of recommendations for living donor evaluation, with three recommendations rega

60 ence for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation.

61 re, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary by deceased don

62 patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first strategy was recommended.

63 ipient with priority in being matched with a living donor from the end of a future transplantation ch

64 y transplantation occasionally contract with living donors from outside the United States.

65 Younger age, living donor graft, and chronic glomerulonephritis were

66 Living donor grafts and multiple biliary anastomoses wer

67 ated the use of partial grafts, particularly living donor grafts, with a higher incidence of BCs.

68 eceased donor, compared with recipients of a living donor had a higher rate of delayed graft function

69 ng-term effects of unilateral nephrectomy on living donors have been important considerations for 60

70 -6.52; P = 0.010), and receiving a LT from a living donor (hazards ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interv

71 increasingly frequent use of laparoscopy in living donor hepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach has

72 Ds donated 1 unit of autologous blood before living donor hepatectomy.

73 erwent PABD and 59 of these donors underwent living donor hepatectomy.

74 aiting list, we selected crossmatch positive living donor HLAi kidney transplant recipients who recei

75 eceased-donor-first followed if necessary by living donor (if still able to donate) or deceased donor

76 with delayed total hepatectomy (RAPID) from living donor in a patient affected of irresectable color

77 tudy, we report the results obtained from 70 living donors in France.

78 PKD, and confirms that the reluctance to use living donors in some primary glomerulonephritides remai

79 Outcome metrics for living donors include patient survival, survival free of

80 ), and entrenched inequities (exclusivity of living donors, inherently advantaging self-advocates, na

81 Future living donor interventions should focus on the network m

82 licable to the instant scenario in which the living donor is a nonresident.

83 other, how to ensure that the consent of the living donor is voluntary and informed, the case of iden

84 btaining both types of cells from vessels of living donors is not possible without invasive surgery.

85 uggested that female recipients of offspring living donor kidney allografts have inferior outcomes.

86 Healthy living donor kidney biopsies served as controls.

87 then travel to the United States to undergo living donor kidney donation at US transplant centers.

88 Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are

89 aft survival was for patients who received a living donor kidney followed by PAK.

90 kidneys could be used to initiate chains of living donor kidney paired donation, but the potential g

91 nce protocol in HLA-mismatched recipients of living donor kidney plus facilitating cell enriched hema

92 y recipients, correlation was stronger among living donor kidney recipients.

93 ties, get waitlisted and pursue deceased and living donor kidney transplant (DDKT and LDKT, respectiv

94 , 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 t

95 onor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0%

96 Increase in living donor kidney transplant and use of marginal organ

97 rgan Sharing registry was reviewed for adult living donor kidney transplant recipients with BMI of 40

98 .01) ml/min per 1.73 m(2) among deceased and living donor kidney transplant recipients, respectively.

99 donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) receiv

100 y transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased

101 .2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to

102 Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/A

103 e past decade in rates of preKT, focusing on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and specifica

104 f deceased kidney transplantation (DDKT) and living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) in the United

105 The presence of sex disparity in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) remains contr

106 his study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a sing

107 ion (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

108 ously observed racial and sex disparities in living donor kidney transplantation do not appear to be

109 , group B) or day -7 (n = 4, group C) before living donor kidney transplantation in addition to post-

110 In contrast, living donor kidney transplantation is used frequently i

111 previous total gastrectomy was evaluated for living donor kidney transplantation.

112 reted and their influence on the practice of living donor kidney transplantation.

113 or requests may contribute to disparities in living donor kidney transplantation.

114 ics/Latinos receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) than non-Hi

115 We compared surveillance biopsies in living donor kidney transplants (LDKTx) from HLA matched

116 hout rejection was reported in recipients of living donor kidney transplants enrolled in the One Stud

117 in recipients of HLA-matched and mismatched living donor kidney transplants in 3 medical centers usi

118 account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States.

119 Tolerance to HLA matched and mismatched living donor kidney transplants with complete withdrawal

120 study of nonsensitized primary recipients of living donor kidney transplants.

121 of chain ending kidneys, and the value of a living donor kidney versus a deceased donor kidney.

122 Receiving a living donor kidney was associated with increased pancre

123 red clinical outcomes of 34 ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney recipients who were transplanted usi

124 itization, we prospectively studied 5 atopic living-donor kidney recipients.

125 transplant (DDKT) recipients (n = 1288) and living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (n = 81

126 ggest that recipients of an ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney transplant after reduction of ABO an

127 -donor kidney transplant alone (DD-KA, 68%), living-donor kidney transplant alone (LD-KA, 30%), or SP

128 Included patients were living-donor kidney transplant recipients aged 18 years

129 atory cell therapy is achievable and safe in living-donor kidney transplant recipients, and is associ

130 To address patient-level barriers to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), centers have

131 onors would result in sustained increases in living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

132 Since the first living-donor kidney transplantation in 1954, more than h

133 comprehensively assess virus transmission in living-donor kidney transplantation.

134 e-to-HIV-positive liver transplantations and living-donor kidney transplantations are also now on the

135 acute AMR in recipients sensitized to their living-donor kidney transplants (EudraCT 2010-019630-28)

136 Many deceased-donor and living-donor kidney transplants (KTs) rely on commercial

137 (KPD) strategies have facilitated compatible living-donor kidney transplants for end-stage renal dise

138 Living-donor kidney transplants from ABO-incompatible do

139 data from a large series of ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney transplants performed at 101 centers

140 rejection (AMR) in sensitized recipients of living-donor kidney transplants requiring pretransplant

141 ecific PBMCs in 24 patients who had received living-donor kidney transplants.

142 Overall, 66.3% of living donor kidneys and 50.7% of deceased donor kidneys

143 xperience with retrograde flushing (RF) of 7 living donor kidneys via the renal vein.

144 donor kidneys were inferior to outcomes with living donor kidneys.

145 disease, the transplantation of adult-sized, living-donor kidneys into small recipients (<20 kg) with

146 non-IgAN and normal renal tissue of 7 kidney living donors (KLD) as controls.

147 In living donor KT (LDKT) recipients, the prevalence was 3.

148 The adjusted HRs for living donor KT were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.24-0.51), 0.27 (95%

149 primarily driven by differences in access to living donor KT.

150 This inequity is very substantial for living donor KT.

151 Data describing the technical aspects of living donor (LD) domino liver transplantation (DLT) in

152 operated the only government-sponsored paid living donor (LD) kidney transplant program.

153 Living donor (LD) kidney transplantation accounts for ar

154 e and compared outcomes to standard (SL) and living donor (LD) livers.

155 o DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor (LD) transplants, analyzing 3-year patient

156 Renal grafts obtained from living donors (LD) typically function immediately, where

157 ith transplantation of a kidney-alone from a living donor (LDK).

158 Patients were grouped as having received a living donor liver allograft from either an offspring or

159 Twelve pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver grafts, identified as operationally t

160 Twelve pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver grafts, identified as operationally t

161 f this study was to compare outcomes between living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor

162 Portal vein (PV) complications after living donor liver transplant (LDLT) have been a major c

163 ve analysis was completed of recipients of a living donor liver transplant from January 1998 to Janua

164 pient) transplant is the most common form of living donor liver transplant in the United States.

165 Recipients of 274 living donor liver transplant were enrolled in the Adult

166 T for ALD using data from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) study, which

167 BO-incompatible (ABOi) dual-graft (DG) adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is not common

168 The patient underwent total hepatectomy and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by left latera

169 Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) enjoys widespr

170 ited States and Europe; however, the data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD remain

171 Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved wi

172 Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has often been

173 ume, outcomes, uniqueness, and challenges of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Latin Ameri

174 opic approach in right hepatectomy (LRH) for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a controver

175 The data about elderly recipient after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unsatisfact

176 Centers offering adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) mostly use rig

177 th hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or brain-dead

178 We studied outcomes following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) post-PVTT down

179 of middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

180 can be used to predict HCC recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

181 States and United Kingdom and resumption of living donor liver transplantation activity in India tow

182 L-LLS requires expertise in both living donor liver transplantation and advanced laparosc

183 duction was different for deceased donor and living donor liver transplantation and varied between ce

184 ords of donors and recipients, who underwent living donor liver transplantation at our institution be

185 tomy (PLDRH) is not a standard procedure for living donor liver transplantation but is safe and repro

186 The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a pro

187 A principal aim of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study was to s

188 ts (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who rece

189 ansplant were enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, includi

190 Living donor liver transplantation followed by DLT for M

191 Living donor liver transplantation is mainly restricted

192 The principle in right lobe living donor liver transplantation is to use "near-perfe

193 Balancing donor and recipient risks in living donor liver transplantation remains an issue of d

194 itish Transplantation Society Guidelines for Living Donor Liver Transplantation was published in July

195 Among female recipients, offspring to parent living donor liver transplantation yields inferior long-

196 ortant role in determining graft outcomes in living donor liver transplantation, its impact in deceas

197 ating to the advantages and disadvantages of living donor liver transplantation.

198 the first national guideline in the field of living donor liver transplantation.

199 that contribute to biliary complications in living donor liver transplantation.

200 ther such a phenomenon also occurs following living donor liver transplantation.

201 recipient outcomes in 623 primary right lobe living donor liver transplantations, using grafts with (

202 Of the study participants, 594 had living donor liver transplants.

203 Of 69 segmental transplants, 47 were living donor liver transplants: 13 grafts (27.7%) were r

204 T heterozygous versus normal phenotype adult living-donor liver transplants (LDLTs).

205 ished by liver transplantation, we performed living donor-liver transplantation in an infant with eth

206 igned to compare, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary b

207 risk of advanced fibrosis was 44% and 37% in living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) pati

208 ve study (1995 to 2015) of primary pediatric living donor LT (LDLT).

209 In this context left lateral living donor LT may be the ideal solution.

210 r age, poor functional status (KPS 10%-40%), living donor LT, pre-LT hemodialysis, and the donor risk

211 ultiple organs, hepatocellular carcinoma, or living donor LT.

212 st mortality, deceased donor LTs (DDLT), and living donor LTs (LDLT) 3/15/2020-8/31/2020 to expected

213 Living donors may incur out-of-pocket costs during the d

214 criteria deceased donor (n = 1523) or from a living donor (n = 1373).

215 specimens collected from 2005 to 2009 after living donor (n=427) or deceased donor (n=548) renal tra

216 To this end, we developed and implemented a Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program at the University o

217 Between 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2014, we did 2002 living donor nephrectomies.

218 ral complications of renal transplants after living donor nephrectomy are uncommon.

219 tors for ureteral complications solely after living donor nephrectomy.

220 The effect of preexisting hypertension on living donor nephron number has not been established.

221 nts after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasing

222 luate and compare the pros and cons of using living donors or brain-dead donors in uterus transplanta

223 , 22.5 years) received segmental grafts from living donors or split/reduced-size grafts from deceased

224 development, leading to ineligibility of the living donor over time.

225 was associated with concerns about finding a living donor (P = 0.038) and higher perceived general kn

226 Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatmen

227 If possible, living donor pediatric kidney transplants should be perf

228 tive, multidisciplinary planning in complex, living-donor pediatric renal transplantation.

229 cofactors, under 2 scenarios: as a potential living donor (PLD), and as a patient awaiting transplant

230 Report about the technique and results of living donor RAPID procedure.

231 In times of organ paucity, "living donor-RAPID" procedure may represent a paradigm s

232 believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching.

233 We investigated 214 living donor-recipient pairs.

234 KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of t

235 expected graft losses increased by >30% for living donor recipients at 1 and 3 years and decreased b

236 fidence interval [95% CI], 0.31 to 0.67) for living donor recipients, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59) for

237 For living donor recipients, the actuarial 15-year PS rates

238 or transplantation in candidates with only 1 living donor remains unclear.

239 Prograde flushing (PF) of living donor renal allografts with preservation solution

240 Retrospective review of 7 consecutive living donor renal transplants performed using the RF te

241 The 7 preceding living donor renal transplants performed using the stand

242 e with outcomes after deceased donor but not living donor renal transplants, thus donor death and org

243 ized management for 3 children who underwent living-donor renal transplantation.

244 ins the main cause of renal graft loss after living-donor renal transplantation.

245 val as well as function with caliper-matched living-donor renal transplantations from the Austrian di

246 ences in network size, network strength, and living donor requests may contribute to disparities in l

247 ared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priori

248 al rates than remaining on dialysis, whereas living donor RT is superior to all other options.

249 azards regression, we explored likelihood of living donor screening and approval by participation in

250 five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure.

251 ciated with a 9-fold increased likelihood of living donor screenings (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.27; 95

252 Living donor segmental pancreas transplants (LDSPTx) hav

253 Nonrelated living donors should be preferred.

254 s to improve the counseling and selection of living donors should focus on developing tools for tailo

255 [95% CI]: 5.9 [1.1-33.7]), presenting with a living donor (SHR [95% CI]: 4.1 [1.4-12.3]), dialysis du

256 e association between different donor types (living donor, standard, and expanded criteria deceased d

257 Compared with a brain-dead donor strategy, a living donor strategy offers greater possibilities for p

258 stry (NKR) Advanced Donation Program enables living donors the opportunity to donate altruistically,

259 Compared with recipients of a living donor, the rate of all-cause graft failure was no

260 ion of whether ethically minors can serve as living donors, the health risks of living donation, the

261 We enrolled 51 living donors to undergo physiologic, morphometric, and

262 (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = 0.01), and living donor transplant (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P

263 Obese children had lower odds of receiving a living donor transplant (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74

264 Outcomes were deceased or living donor transplant, death or removal from the list

265 onal transplant system saw near cessation of living donor transplantation (-90%) from the week of 3/8

266 s' decisions about recipient suitability for living donor transplantation aimed to achieve optimal re

267 orating previously reported experiences from living donor transplantation and recent developments in

268 st advantageous use of deceased donor versus living donor transplantation for pediatric recipients.

269 geous timing strategy regarding deceased and living donor transplantation in candidates with only 1 l

270 tibody to perform an HLA-incompatible (HLAi) living donor transplantation is perceived to be high ris

271 isting using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list re

272 tious risk donors, (iii) wait time, and (iv) living donor transplantation.

273 ools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation.

274 enefit was 62% versus 70% in deceased versus living donor transplanted patients.

275 34.8% of patients had living donor transplants (Early 51%, Normal 31.4%, Late

276 contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants (Newsletter Transplant; Interna

277 that the survival rate of HLA poorly matched living donor transplants is not inferior to that of HLA

278 g on kidney graft survival in 3627 pediatric living donor transplants performed during 2000 to 2015 u

279 with their donors may increase the number of living donor transplants.

280 observed for HLA-DRB1 in deceased donor and living donor transplants.

281 of the number of adult LDLT and the rate of living donor utilization in comparison with other contin

282 ted donors, and at centers with higher total living donor volume.

283 In contrast, receiving a kidney from a living donor was associated with a reduced risk (OR = 0.

284 dney transplant recipients and 2 transgender living donors was constructed and analyzed.

285 -level median household income of all 71,882 living donors was determined by linkage to the 2000 US C

286 mong kidney transplant recipients from older living donors was similar to or better than SCD recipien

287 ns pertains mostly to deceased as opposed to living donors, we aimed to assess the risk factors for u

288 Complications in living donors were acceptable with no early or late deat

289 val rates of transplants from poorly matched living donors were compared with those from well-matched

290 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam

291 ntial elements in psychosocial evaluation of living donors which can serve as a uniform basis for the

292 icle calls for further research on potential living donors who opt out of donation.

293 Recipients of kidneys from living donors who subsequently develop end-stage renal d

294 Recipients of kidneys from living donors who subsequently develop ESRD also have hi

295 impossible to sustain prohibitions on paying living donors, who are at risk.

296 one-third of transplanted kidneys come from living donors, who sacrifice approximately 30% of their

297 compares favorably with that of grafts from living donors with 4 to 6 HLA mismatches.

298 graft survival of pediatric transplants from living donors with 4 to 6 HLA-A+B+DR mismatches was sign

299 Grafts can be obtained from deceased or living donors, with different logistical requirements an

300 donation serum creatinine exists among obese living donors, with high volume centers having the lowes