ライフサイエンスコーパス: pretransplant

1 nt had been screened for latent TB infection pretransplant.

2 09) when such treatment was not administered pretransplant.

3 to both HLA and non-HLA antigens are present pretransplant.

4 09) when such treatment was not administered pretransplant.

5 SAB analysis revealed 35 DSA in 20 patients pretransplant.

6 for surgical correction of the urinary tract pretransplant.

7 ncy patients beginning XOR inhibitor therapy pretransplant.

8 Ten patients received XOR inhibitor therapy pretransplant (11 allografts), while 8 patients did not

9 Ten patients received XOR inhhibitor therapy pretransplant (11 allografts), while 8 patients did not

10 ssment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

11 Pretransplant admission strongly predicted more frequent

12 ry model for end-stage liver disease scores, pretransplant alpha fetoprotein, and cumulative tumor di

13 Fifty-eight recipients were studied: 23 pretransplant and 40 posttransplant (including 5 with pr

14 nts underwent HLA-antibody testing quarterly pretransplant and at regular intervals over the first 24

15 nt recipients (n = 50), levels were measured pretransplant and daily for 4 days posttransplant.

16 Pretransplant and intraoperative bariatric surgeries hav

17 nts in multivariate analysis controlling for pretransplant and pathologic factors (HR 1.32, P = 0.044

18 387 were transplanted, and 326 provided both pretransplant and post-transplant data.

19 galovirus (CMV) activity was assessed in 280 pretransplant and posttransplant blood samples from 33 d

20 to determine the type of organ transplanted, pretransplant and posttransplant cancer, and immunosuppr

21 allocation, adherence to prescribed therapy, pretransplant and posttransplant care, implementation of

22 Associations with pretransplant and posttransplant delisting/mortality, ho

23 l practice are associated with reductions in pretransplant and posttransplant hyperparathyroidism, vi

24 al confounding variables identified separate pretransplant and posttransplant IR thresholds for predi

25 e studied more than 270 000 patients on whom pretransplant and posttransplant malignancy data were re

26 B) are used for monitoring HLA antibodies in pretransplant and posttransplant patients despite the di

27 Pretransplant and posttransplant sera from 162 lung reci

28 considered for LT need to be assessed in the pretransplant and posttransplant settings because these

29 ecific RNA-Seq transcriptomes are comparable pretransplant and posttransplant, suggesting that the ce

30 (PCR) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) testing on pretransplant and serially collected posttransplant samp

31 Pretransplant and technical variables were included in t

32 graphic progression of CAD between baseline (pretransplant) and follow-up at 7 years or older.

33 xyurea and azathioprine starting at -45 days pretransplant, and fludarabine from days -16 to -12.

34 The presence of pretransplant anti-ARHGDIB antibodies has an additive ef

35 Pretransplant antibiotic allergy evaluation may optimize

36 rejection were observed for recipients with pretransplant antibodies to AT1R (P = 0.19) and ETAR (P

37 When the pretransplant antibody status of HLA-specific antibody (

38 Median duration of pretransplant antifungal therapy and posttransplant ther

39 The presence of pretransplant antiphospholipid antibodies increases risk

40 A careful oncological surveillance pretransplant as well as posttransplant is recommended.

41 point of care, making them suitable for the pretransplant assessment of bile duct viability.

42 g (IADL) and gait speed, may be an important pretransplant assessment.

43 Pretransplant basal cell carcinoma of the skin and male

44 ansplant (simultaneous), and recipients with pretransplant bilateral nephrectomies (pre).

45 Pretransplant biopsy was performed more frequently in hB

46 qualifying list or one diagnosis code and a pretransplant biopsy.

47 We retrospectively determined the pretransplant BKV neutralizing serostatus of 116 donors

48 We analyzed pretransplant blood and bone marrow samples by reverse-t

49 s a graded, detrimental impact of increasing pretransplant BMI on the risk of graft failure after kid

50 The impact of pretransplant body mass index (BMI) on long-term allogra

51 To evaluate the effect of pretransplant bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) on hep

52 Each patient had a separate donor; however, pretransplant bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was only avai

53 The patient was JCPyV naive pretransplant, but showed high antibody titers during th

54 to assess whether modifying muscle function pretransplant can lead to improved clinical outcomes.

55 ll (n = 95) renal transplanted patients with pretransplant cancer diagnoses in the Uppsala-Orebro reg

56 Kidney transplant recipients with a pretransplant cancer had a similar overall patient and g

57 Patients with pretransplant cancer showed higher incidence of posttran

58 atient and graft survival of recipients with pretransplant cancer to the outcomes of matched recipien

59 istry and included European patients without pretransplant cancer.

60 to 2010, 377 (6.4%) of 5867 recipients had a pretransplant cancer.

61 on coronary artery disease, a comprehensive pretransplant cardiac evaluation must consider other pro

62 n obese individuals and remain the basis for pretransplant cardiovascular evaluation and risk stratif

63 ct plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p <

64 Importantly, pretransplant CD antigen expression is most predictive o

65 Patients with pretransplant CDOA were more likely to be 19 to 30 years

66 ncerning HSCT itself (including the need for pretransplant chemotherapy, the best conditioning regime

67 In a subset of 37 recipients, pretransplant circulating Treg cell-suppressive function

68 , screening instruments, clinical monitoring pretransplant, clinical monitoring posttransplant, patie

69 Patients at high risk for CMV based on pretransplant CMI developed significantly higher CMV inf

70 Procurement Organization (OPO) began a novel pretransplant CMV prevention strategy via matching decea

71 nical trial assessed the value of monitoring pretransplant CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI)

72 Pretransplant CMV-specific CMI identifies D+/R+ kidney r

73 Nineteen (28%) of 67 D+R- KTRs showed pretransplant CMV-specific T cells.

74 undred sixty-two (80%) of 203 R+ KTRs showed pretransplant CMV-specific T cells.

75 After adjustment, pretransplant cognitive scores were significantly lower

76 has been reported in 13% to 50% of selected pretransplant cohorts, but use of more precise diagnosti

77 Nine pretransplant comorbidity covariates were defined: cardi

78 ith early hospital readmission often reflect pretransplant comorbidity, and many of these factors may

79 ls choline and myo-inositol that were higher pretransplant compared with controls (P=0.001 and P<0.00

80 ral blood flow, which was higher in patients pretransplant compared with controls (P=0.003), decrease

81 Thus, myeloablative pretransplant conditioning can be safely combined with h

82 Pretransplant conditioning consisted of fludarabine and

83 ransplantation (ABOi) in children is rare as pretransplant conditioning remains challenging and conce

84 ng to receive a kidney transplant, including pretransplant considerations, posttransplant monitoring,

85 In conclusion, pretransplant COPD, impaired graft function and the occu

86 enal transplant recipients and donors during pretransplant counselling.

87 no significant differences in transplant and pretransplant covariates between induction and no induct

88 April 1, all donors and recipients underwent pretransplant COVID-19 testing, all returning negative r

89 At our institution, pretransplant COVID-19 testing, use of local donor lungs

90 iving late reallocation based on the type of pretransplant crossmatch used for the intended recipient

91 air the DNA damage response, and more severe pretransplant cytopenias, but not with bone marrow blast

92 ghly optimized for favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV

93 The pretransplant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cos

94 lth outcomes at cost savings compared to the pretransplant DAA treatment strategy.

95 We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatmen

96 Pretransplant, dCLKT had longer ICU stay, were more ofte

97 Pretransplant, dCLKT had longer intensive care unit stay

98 of living-donor kidney transplants requiring pretransplant desensitization (NCT01399593).

99 Rather than using pretransplant desensitization therapies, we used a postt

100 dementia and AD were older recipient age and pretransplant diabetes.

101 Pretransplant diagnosis of chronic pulmonary obstructive

102 index, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and pretransplant diagnosis, higher E/e and E/e greater than

103 (HCV)-negative recipient population included pretransplant dialysis (adjusted incident rate ratio [aI

104 In HCV-negative SLK recipients, recipient pretransplant dialysis and components of kidney graft qu

105 Multivariate predictors of RAF included pretransplant dialysis duration, kidney cold ischemia, k

106 Adjustments for pretransplant dialysis duration, sex, country, and trans

107 Longer pretransplant dialysis exposure is associated with a hig

108 fic dialysis mortality on the association of pretransplant dialysis exposure with transplant survival

109 and graft survival were compared for preKT, pretransplant dialysis less than 1 year, and pretranspla

110 ic time, donor age, previous transplant, and pretransplant dialysis modality.

111 pretransplant dialysis less than 1 year, and pretransplant dialysis recipients of 1 year or longer.

112 Patients who received pretransplant dialysis treatment in a state with a high

113 ared with patients with the same duration of pretransplant dialysis treatment in a state with a lower

114 Pretransplant dialysis vintage is associated with excess

115 ing variables: transplant age, gender, race, pretransplant dialysis, transplant center, and year).

116 Neither pretransplant disorder was related to risk for any outco

117 Pretransplant DNA samples from 696 CBUs with malignant d

118 gher in recipients who developed BK viremia, pretransplant donor, recipient, and combined donor/recip

119 Sensitized recipients with pretransplant donor-specific Abs are at higher risk for

120 s (DSA-M) in renal allograft recipients with pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) and it

121 Delayed graft function (DGF) and pretransplant donor-specific HLA-antibodies (DSA) are bo

122 gy (median time after transplant, 5.0 years; pretransplant DSA documented in 19 recipients), who were

123 Next, we determined pretransplant DSA using various MFI cutoffs, signal-to-b

124 Pretransplant DSA was detected in 12 (11%) recipients wi

125 antibody-mediated rejection in patients with pretransplant DSA, neither the presence of HLA antibodie

126 vival longer than 1 year, and (3) absence of pretransplant DSA.

127 Overall, pretransplant DSA/DSA-Mpos allograft recipients showed a

128 P < .0001) but no difference in the need for pretransplant ECMO (incidence rate ratio = 1.16, P = .12

129 splant LOS but no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other posttransplant outcomes.

130 entially increase single lung transplants or pretransplant ECMO utilization.

131 Seventy patients (15.4%) had pretransplant eGFR < 60 mL/min, which was associated wit

132 n NASH candidates and strategies to optimize pretransplant evaluation and waitlist survival.

133 f PET/CT imaging for response assessment and pretransplant evaluation in lymphoma.

134 r events constitute an important part of the pretransplant evaluation.

135 han their native lungs, and with significant pretransplant exposure to steroids, factors that when co

136 nge on recipient characteristics, the use of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

137 center from April 2008 to July 2018 and had pretransplant FDG PET (n=18) or cardiac MRI (n=31).

138 In this two-center cohort study, we assessed pretransplant frailty (Fried physical frailty phenotype)

139 ed post-transplant cognitive trajectories by pretransplant frailty, accounting for nonlinear trajecto

140 nt graft rejection was allocated to elevated pretransplant frequencies of CD28 memory T cells.

141 ly, with IFN-gamma-dominated response in the pretransplant group replaced by IL-10-dominated response

142 Thirteen of the 22 patients in the pretransplant group who required 7 or more days of CRRT

143 in the general surgical group and 55 in the pretransplant group.

144 At 3 months, patients who used midodrine pretransplant had significantly (P < 0.05) higher rates

145 s higher in patients with higher proteinuria pretransplant [hazard ratio = 1.869 (95% confidence inte

146 in kidney allograft recipients with negative pretransplant HBc, HCV, EBV, or CMV serology.

147 ch is necessary for those patients with high pretransplant HBV DNA levels, those with limited antivir

148 and hepatitis D virus-negative patients with pretransplant HBV DNA undetectable to 100 IU/mL who rece

149 ality were male gender (HR 2.40, P = 0.001), pretransplant hepatocellular (HR 2.92, P = 0.001) or bil

150 For pretransplant HHV8 screening in both donors and recipien

151 Pretransplant HIV viral load was undetectable (<50 copie

152 d multivariable-adjusted association between pretransplant HLA class I and II antibodies, as well as

153 In human OLT, posttransplant but not pretransplant HO-1 expression correlated negatively with

154 High posttransplant but not pretransplant HO-1 expression trended with improved OLT

155 We investigated whether pretransplant identification of patients with CAD is hel

156 In conclusion, pretransplant IgA-aB2GP1 was the main risk factor for gr

157 Pretransplant immunological risk assessment is currently

158 A pretransplant infection by a resistant pathogen was sign

159 ression and preventive strategies, including pretransplant infectious diseases screening and antimicr

160 ore to predict posttransplant outcomes using pretransplant information including routine laboratory d

161 Pretransplant, intraoperative, and posttransplant variab

162 Blood, Myllymaki et al evaluated the role of pretransplant leukocyte telomere length (LTL) on surviva

163 ased during the viremic phase and approached pretransplant levels 3 months post-BMT.

164 r increase in donor-specific antibodies from pretransplant levels are associated with adverse outcome

165 ividual's immune system and that recovery of pretransplant levels of catalytic IgG is accompanied by

166 nt viremia was reduced among cases with high pretransplant levels of NKG2C(+) NK cells.

167 were enrolled into 2 strata defined by their pretransplant levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH), low P

168 ABO nonidentical patients (n = 58), provided pretransplant levels of relevant isoagglutinins were bel

169 s remained significantly lower compared with pretransplant levels until CMV reactivation, at which po

170 sttransplant life expectancy; 1 year less of pretransplant life expectancy required an increase of 1.

171 Pretransplant life expectancy was valued more highly tha

172 ere observed for tumors in the site-specific pretransplant locations, suggesting tumor recurrences.

173 act of complete pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, mul

174 For LT recipients with HCC receiving pretransplant LRT, achieving cPR portends significantly

175 Pretransplant, M-MDSC, and monocytes were similar in KTR

176 ategies have been used to deliver siRNA, and pretransplant machine perfusion presents a unique opport

177 1, 1991, and October 20, 2014, and who had a pretransplant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) severity

178 id organ transplant recipients (SOTR) with a pretransplant malignancy (PTM) are at increased risk for

179 e evaluation of patients with a history of a pretransplant malignancy for transplant candidacy.

180 Our study objective is to identify whether pretransplant malignancy increases the risk for posttran

181 Pretransplant malignancy is associated with increased ri

182 than 4000 of these patients were treated for pretransplant malignancy.

183 1.05-1.30) when compared with those without pretransplant malignancy.

184 tified according to the presence and type of pretransplant malignancy.

185 nancy risk differed according to the type of pretransplant malignancy.

186 he risk remained elevated when patients with pretransplant malignant neoplasms (n = 1124) were exclud

187 led to develop a precision-based approach to pretransplant management.

188 Pretransplant measurable residual disease (MRD) was moni

189 or avoidance of cold ischemia and allows for pretransplant measurement of function and metabolic stat

190 Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensiv

191 recipient management, immunosuppression, and pretransplant mechanical circulatory support have been a

192 from the EDSS improved significantly from a pretransplant median of 4.0 to 3.0 (interquartile range

193 A history of pretransplant melanoma, previous kidney transplantation,

194 ncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear gu

195 Detectable pretransplant MFC-MRD was associated with an increased C

196 as for the propensity of midodrine exposure, pretransplant midodrine use was independently associated

197 Adjusted associations of pretransplant midodrine use with complications at 3 and

198 uclear cells were collected at 3 timepoints (pretransplant, mo 6, mo 12).

199 Patients were screened for DSA pretransplant, monitored regularly posttransplant and wh

200 at 3 months abrogated the adverse impact of pretransplant MRD on CIR and overall survival.

201 anted for high-risk AML or MDS regardless of pretransplant MRD status.

202 ars), there was a significant association of pretransplant MRI severity and baseline verbal comprehen

203 Higher pretransplant MRI severity scores were also associated w

204 Unfortunately, pretransplant MSC administration is unfeasible in deceas

205 9, 57%), and prior peripartum cardiomyopathy pretransplant (n=57, 47%).

206 y the end of the experiment, although early (pretransplant) negative effects of pCO2 on recruitment o

207 We investigated 13 pretransplant non-HLA antibodies and their association w

208 Luminex Single Antigen Flow Bead assays, 346 pretransplant nonsensitized kidney recipients were scree

209 to acute tubular injury without rejection or pretransplant "normal kidney" biopsy samples.

210 ined for a considerable part by variation in pretransplant NT-proBNP at the time of transplantation.

211 We want to study whether pretransplant NT-proBNP is associated with posttransplan

212 Graded associations of pretransplant opioid exposure level with death and graft

213 e sought to analyze the relationship between pretransplant opioid use in lung transplant candidates a

214 Pretransplant opioid use was not associated with retrans

215 Recipient ethnicity was associated with pretransplant opioid use.

216 No pretransplant or organ donors tested positive for SARS-C

217 such that most patients can be cured in the pretransplant or posttransplant setting.

218 We reviewed data from the pretransplant organ donor evaluation and local EEEV surv

219 response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metric

220 obacco use after lung transplantation (LTx), pretransplant patient characteristics associated with to

221 we set out to examine concurrent changes in pretransplant patient complexity, posttransplant surviva

222 we evaluated CMV-CMI every 2 weeks from the pretransplant period until 6 months posttransplantation

223 were always significantly lower than in the pretransplant period.

224 Pretransplant pharmacokinetic testing was performed to d

225 lant and 40 posttransplant (including 5 with pretransplant phenotyping).

226 We prospectively collected pretransplant plasma and urine samples from living and d

227 The pretransplant population was censored from further survi

228 Therefore, pretransplant predictive markers are needed.

229 ecific T cell phenotype but reversion toward pretransplant profiles over time.

230 Impact on mortality of the recipient's pretransplant PS is principally limited to the first 3 m

231 hematological malignancy, and had available pretransplant pulmonary function test results.

232 ese, 215 (84.6%) were transplanted without a pretransplant PXM.

233 We measured relative telomere length in pretransplant recipient blood samples in 1514 MDS patien

234 Pretransplant recipient circulating CD4+CD127lo/-TNFR2+

235 this prospective observational cohort study, pretransplant recipient circulating CD4+CD25+CD127lo/- a

236 mpler alternative to Treg cell function as a pretransplant recipient immune marker for AKI (DGF + SGF

237 otein at recurrence, donor serum sodium, and pretransplant recipient neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.

238 ly address the perioperative approach to the pretransplant recipient on opioids.

239 s who displayed high levels of catalytic IgG pretransplant recovered high levels of catalytic Abs 2 y

240 Both donors had renal failure and pretransplant renal biopsies showing 100% of the glomeru

241 ation is usually restricted to patients with pretransplant renal impairment, and this strategy could

242 inally, the advances in our understanding of pretransplant risk assessment, and our increasing abilit

243 Biomarkers relevant to pretransplant risk assessment, early posttransplant care

244 Four independent pretransplant risk factors were associated with 1-year m

245 of AR in deceased kidney recipients based on pretransplant risk of DGF using a validated model.

246 benefit from eculizumab prophylaxis based on pretransplant risk stratification and support the need f

247 o supplement serum HLA antibody analysis for pretransplant risk stratification in patients with DSA.

248 With respect to pretransplant risk stratification, we propose a signal-t

249 Whether pretransplant rituximab modifies the course of recurrenc

250 hat warrants attention in efforts to improve pretransplant screening and management protocols before

251 We performed serological and molecular pretransplant screening in solid organ transplant (SOT)

252 e studies are needed to define the impact of pretransplant sensitization on lung transplant recipient

253 odified immunosuppression depending on their pretransplant sensitization status.

254 We prospectively screened pretransplant sera from 543 kidney recipients using sing

255 All four AECAs were detected in 24% of pretransplant sera, and they were associated with post-t

256 JC polyomavirus was not detected in pretransplant serum, however viral loads increased with

257 However, outcomes data in the pretransplant setting, particularly for younger patients

258 tors for posttransplant skin cancer included pretransplant skin cancer (HR, 4.69; 95% CI, 3.26-6.73),

259 index posttransplant cancer were history of pretransplant skin cancer (subhazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI,

260 , death and graft failure in recipients with pretransplant skin cancer compared with those without ca

261 Recipients with pretransplant skin cancer had increased risk of PTM (sub

262 idence of PTM in patients with and without a pretransplant skin cancer history was 31.6% and 7.4%, re

263 Pretransplant skin cancer was associated with an increas

264 We studied the association between pretransplant skin cancer, PTM, death, and graft failure

265 Pretransplant skin malignancy increased the risk of post

266 ded 1671 recipients with and 102 961 without pretransplant skin malignancy.

267 Pretransplant solid malignancy also increased the risk o

268 16 DOCK8-deficient patients recruited at the pretransplant stage, and seven patients with autosomal d

269 Patients were categorized by their type of pretransplant support: no support, ECMO only, invasive m

270 tigated a conditioning regimen consisting of pretransplant T cell depletion, low-dose total body irra

271 vers necessitate the development of accurate pretransplant tests of viability.

272 lant irrespective of their MELD meaning that pretransplant therapy cannot reduce costs in such settin

273 t state of LT recipients, identified through pretransplant thromboelastographic (TEG) data among othe

274 ate the evolution of mineral metabolism from pretransplant through the first year after transplantati

275 Patients with pretransplant titers of 1 or more in 8 received rituxima

276 rved for recipients with antibodies detected pretransplant to AT1R (P = 0.054), ETAR (P = 0.012), and

277 Four patients received rituximab 4 months pretransplant to prevent recurrence.

278 raining samples and IR of 1.23 or greater in pretransplant training samples predicted LTx or ITx reje

279 Patients who experienced a pretransplant tumor are at significant risk of tumor rec

280 Time interval from pretransplant tumor occurrence to transplantation and po

281 was compared to that in recipients without a pretransplant tumor.

282 f transplant rejection because patients with pretransplant tumors tended to show improved death-censo

283 ymphocyte, CD19(+), and NK-cell numbers from pretransplant until 15 years posttransplant.

284 Pretransplant urinary BKV shedding of donor and recipien

285 Pretransplant urinary BKV shedding of donor or recipient

286 entiated memory T cells/muL rejected, median pretransplant values of the biomarkers did not differ be

287 score, the SALT score, using four objective pretransplant variables identifies candidates with AH fo

288 (median [min-max] 71.2 muM [29.2-189.7 muM] pretransplant versus 11.4 muM [8.9-20.2 muM] post-transp

289 At this time, pretransplant viral screening of donors and recipients i

290 A similar impact of pretransplant VitD deficiency on relapse risk in myeloid

291 Conclusion Pretransplant VitD deficiency was associated with a high

292 A significant association of pretransplant VitD deficiency with higher relapse rates

293 Patients and Methods The impact of pretransplant VitD status on overall survival, relapse m

294 In adults, exercise training pretransplant was safe, but there was insufficient evide

295 We identified pretransplant weight loss and TSP as strong independent

296 velop a predictive tool to identify patients pretransplant with low risk for sustained alcohol use po

297 M was 3 hours shorter than those requiring a pretransplant XM (P < 0.0001).

298 XM) (P < 0.0001), and use of donor blood for pretransplant XM (P < 0.0001).

299 ng transplants despite organ, recipient, and pretransplant XM result being ready, suggesting that the

300 , 1 to 7, 8 to 14, or 15 or more days in the pretransplant year were 51%, 25%, 11%, and 13%.