ライフサイエンスコーパス: transplant center

1 cing and reduction of patients visits to the transplant center.

2 re (DT) in a level 1 trauma center and large transplant center.

3 SLT) in a combined pediatric and adult liver transplant center.

4 he demands in a combined adult and pediatric transplant center.

5 ion than the median waiting time for a given transplant center.

6 2012 at our institution, a high-volume lung transplant center.

7 2020 and April 22, 2020 at a US high-volume transplant center.

8 y support (MCS) device recipients at a large transplant center.

9 case-control matched groups at a university transplant center.

10 ugh OLT presents a major challenge for every transplant center.

11 of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

12 atients with advanced HF referred to a heart transplant center.

13 driving time from residence to closest lung transplant center.

14 finition of the population attributable to a transplant center.

15 nce to date on VA use, at a high-volume U.S. transplant center.

16 l distance from patient zip code centroid to transplant center.

17 r cross-sectional cohort from an independent transplant center.

18 9 kidney transplants performed at the Leiden Transplant Center.

19 eiving dialysis at a location >100 km from a transplant center.

20 irst week post-transplantation in a separate transplant center.

21 ding to the supportive therapy prescribed by transplant centers.

22 tients (84 774) were listed across 112 liver transplant centers.

23 nted in the emergency departments (EDs) of 3 transplant centers.

24 January 2013 to July 2015 among adult kidney transplant centers.

25 the new policy on the treatment practices of transplant centers.

26 ariation in BMI of accepted donors across US transplant centers.

27 aluation for KT as have been found in non-VA transplant centers.

28 ion (KT) in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA transplant centers.

29 Both kidneys were declined by all UK transplant centers.

30 o living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers.

31 ost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.

32 s outside of clinical trials in all Canadian transplant centers.

33 SLK versus LTA differs significantly between transplant centers.

34 differences in live donor education between transplant centers.

35 ies variation in the use of resources at the transplant centers.

36 vals to identify potentially underperforming transplant centers.

37 areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers.

38 l outcomes is inter-grader variability among transplant centers.

39 vide the basis for quality measurement of US transplant centers.

40 ed for hematologic malignancies in 28 German transplant centers.

41 ed between 1963 and 2007 at three major U.S. transplant centers.

42 loidentical transplantation available in all transplant centers.

43 m January 2007 to July 2009 for adult kidney transplant centers.

44 r trial was performed in 12 pediatric kidney transplant centers.

45 is controversial and contraindicated in many transplant centers.

46 expertise in nephron sparing techniques, not transplant centers.

47 We studied adults listed for LT at 2 transplant centers.

48 in parallel with systems used by solid organ transplant centers.

49 t eligible for liver transplantation in most transplant centers.

50 s may contribute to varying practices across transplant centers.

51 reduced supply/demand ratio variation across transplant centers.

52 e hepatology, especially in areas outside of transplant centers.

53 mes between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA transplant centers.

54 o undergo living donor kidney donation at US transplant centers.

55 bias in kidney offer acceptance/rejection at transplant centers.

56 nit in any of the Australian and New Zealand transplanting centers.

57 ed heparin premortem compared with two of 17 transplant centers (11.8%).

58 ectively over 14 months from personnel in 16 transplant centers, 19 histocompatibility and immunogene

59 g patients who traveled >60 miles to reach a transplant center, 41.8% bypassed a closer center and so

60 The survey was completed by directors of 156 transplant centers (75% response).

61 In most transplant centers, a patient with a BMI above 35 to 40

62 y donor blood type, recipient blood type, or transplant center ABOi volume.

63 donor blood type, recipient blood type, and transplant center ABOi volume.

64 Despite transplant centers accepting recipients who are older wi

65 nt) for year 1 after transplantation for all transplant centers, adjusting for recipient, donor, and

66 negatively associated with distance from the transplant center (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p=0.045).

67 ter competition, and %DCDD livers by a local transplant center (all Spearman coefficients 0.289-0.464

68 ter competition, and %DCDD livers by a local transplant center (all Spearman coefficients 0.289-0.464

69 Of these, 193 (73.4%) were practicing in a transplant center and 160 (60.6%) participated in at lea

70 Models were stratified by transplant center and adjusted for donor and recipient a

71 n, all PSC patients in the three Dutch liver transplant centers and all inflammatory bowel disease (I

72 TRRs define populations served by transplant centers and could enable future studies of ho

73 -group trial conducted in 19 French academic transplant centers and involving participants who were a

74 realistic expectation of patient outcomes at transplant centers and may be of value to transplant cen

75 atory agencies, private insurance providers, transplant centers and patients.

76 at transplant centers and may be of value to transplant centers and policymakers.

77 nt listing and transplantation strategies at transplant centers and potentially reduce deceased-donor

78 hese results highlight the discrepancy among transplant centers and the relevance of risk avoidance i

79 r strategies may be increasingly relevant to transplant centers and those caring for immunocompromise

80 ome of recipients or donors refused by other transplant centers and transplanted by our transplant un

81 or patients' and donors' characteristics and transplant centers' and organ procurement organizations'

82 ng socioeconomic status (SES), distance to a transplant center, and center switching behavior.

83 ty, uninsured rates, distance to the closest transplant center, and local rates of obesity, diabetes,

84 ollowing listing in those distant from their transplant center, and our description of a method to mo

85 t age, gender, race, pretransplant dialysis, transplant center, and year).

86 atients between June 2010 and May 2013 in 12 transplant centers, and linked these data to information

87 riable clinical practices and policies among transplant centers, and patients' potentially compromise

88 mortality outcomes were simulated in virtual transplant centers, and used to flag centers according t

89 ed odds ratios, controlling for individual-, transplant center-, and organ procurement organization-l

90 Kidney transplant centers are distributed unevenly throughout 5

91 A significant proportion of kidney transplant centers are identified as low performing with

92 splant patient registry of a kidney-pancreas transplant center between 1984 and 2012.

93 analysis of 1112 DCD donor LT across all UK transplant centers between 2001 and 2015 was performed,

94 transplant candidates listed at 56 U.S. lung transplant centers between 2006 and 2012.

95 6765 transplanted IRD kidneys offered to 187 transplant centers between 2009 and 2017 using Scientifi

96 ant recipients were recruited from all 23 UK transplant centers between 2011 and 2013.

97 performed a retrospective cohort study at 4 transplant centers between 2015 and 2016 to evaluate thi

98 vo or recurrent resistant FSGS at 2 large US transplant centers between April 2012 and December 2016.

99 d donor kidney-only transplant in 7 Canadian transplant centers between December 2011 and June 2013.

100 minimum of 36 weeks was instituted at 1 of 3 transplant centers between June 5, 2006, and November 18

101 After adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, and transplant center, both FFP and SPPB were associated wit

102 Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers but has been become more standardized

103 lt to track and often managed outside of the transplant center by primary care providers.

104 nters and could enable future studies of how transplant centers can improve access for patients in th

105 provides suggestions how different types of transplant centers can set up a dedicated MNA program ac

106 Transplant centers can use identified risk factors to ta

107 as (transplant referral regions [TRRs]) from transplant center care patterns for population-based ass

108 rs, as opposed to 13.2 years in the combined transplant centers cohort (n = 422; P < 0.0001).

109 Transplant centers commonly evaluate split renal functio

110 nsplant recipients were randomized from 4 US transplant centers comparing a control group of with rab

111 , lower kidney procurement rates, and higher transplant center competition.

112 Transplant centers coordinate complex care in acute live

113 95-2014) and assessed whether travel time to transplant center correlates with outcome.

114 In the United States, distance from liver transplant center correlates with worsened outcomes; the

115 Our review of regional turn-downs suggests transplant centers could potentially identify additional

116 t of 1528 lung transplant recipients from 12 transplant centers, delayed-onset CMV disease occurred i

117 Market competition and transplant center density may affect transplantation acc

118 Sixty-five percent of transplant centers do not have a dedicated transplant ph

119 Two thirds of transplant centers do not see the kidney transplant reci

120 1625 autologous HSCTs (auto-HSCTs) among 54 transplant centers during 2014 (SIGNB-GITMO-AMCLI study)

121 d transplant education and should supplement transplant center education for Hispanics.

122 , we measured the understandability of liver transplant center education websites and assessed whethe

123 f belatacept in combination with tacrolimus, transplant center effects, and differing approaches to m

124 ore specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and

125 Twenty-seven transplant centers enrolled 302 patients <18 years of ag

126 We conducted a cohort study across two transplant centers enrolling African Americans who donat

127 Many transplant centers establish a threshold of D-BMI of 30

128 Although most transplant centers evaluated HIV risk behaviors in livin

129 tions and supportive care with guidance from transplant center experts.

130 ased on the establishment of one specialized transplant center, focused on small children, and cooper

131 ease of CBUs from the cord blood bank to the transplant center for transplantation.

132 s for patients with ID, fear of penalties to transplant centers for poor outcomes, and stigma surroun

133 ferral for kidney transplant evaluation at a transplant center from a dialysis facility to start the

134 dults undergoing liver transplant at a large transplant center from February 1, 2002, through July 31

135 tients with ALD evaluated for LT at a single transplant center from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2017

136 l consecutive POPH adults evaluated in three transplant centers from 1996 to 2019.

137 transplantation at the six Veterans Affairs' transplant centers from 2013-2018.

138 f all adults receiving CLKT at 2 high-volume transplant centers from February 2004 through January 20

139 n all adults receiving CLKT at 2 high-volume transplant centers from February 2004 to January 2017, a

140 survival, perhaps paradoxically discouraging transplant centers from these procedures.

141 clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the

142 All responding transplant centers had performed donation after circulat

143 hearts, and lungs are recovered only after a transplant center has accepted the organ for transplant.

144 Transplant center improvements have extended the indicat

145 patocellular carcinoma was instituted at our transplant center in 1997.

146 ortality was lower at the highest volume CHD transplant center in each UNOS region (hazard ratio: 0.7

147 for renal transplant evaluation at a single transplant center in the Southeastern United States from

148 A survey was sent to 119 transplant centers in 12 European countries.

149 ansplants were performed at 229 adult kidney transplant centers in 58 DSAs.

150 Participants from 3 transplant centers in Australia and Canada participated

151 oxes in 136 patients (11-24 y) followed in 8 transplant centers in Canada and the United States.

152 valuated the role of spatial organization of transplant centers in conjunction with market competitio

153 r pediatric intestinal transplantation among transplant centers in Europe, the United States, and Can

154 New York State found a wide variation among transplant centers in evaluation and screening for HIV r

155 ransplant referral data collected from adult transplant centers in Georgia in the same period.

156 ta to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South

157 With this report from two transplant centers in Italy, we aim to reflect on resour

158 Our survey of kidney and liver transplant centers in New York State found a wide variat

159 liability, we identified the pediatric liver transplant centers in North America with the lowest hepa

160 MACRA) offers a time-sensitive incentive for transplant centers in particular to align with extant CE

161 oupled with variation between the 7 UK liver transplant centers in risk appetite.

162 t heart transplant recipients, undertaken at transplant centers in Scandinavia.

163 ocal alliances and collaborations with major transplant centers in the developed world will contribut

164 es; aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98), and fewer transplant centers in the donor service area (per center

165 on Polyomavirus Nephropathy, comprising nine transplant centers in the United States and Europe.

166 ed to local assays used by 5 laboratories at transplant centers in the United States and Europe.

167 The trial was conducted at 6 academic transplant centers in the United States between October

168 We extrapolated these numbers to all transplant centers in the United States, estimating that

169 Therefore, we surveyed all 208 adult kidney transplant centers in the United States, excluding 37 pe

170 zed adult kidney transplant recipients at 12 transplant centers in the United States, Italy, and Spai

171 ected and analyzed data from 12 large-volume transplant centers in the United States.

172 l transplant patients collected across eight transplant centers in the US, Mexico, and Spain between

173 In multivariable analysis, more kidney transplant centers (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.04; P

174 uated using several methods available at the transplant center, including estimating equations and cl

175 dian distance between the donor hospital and transplant center increased from 83 to 216 nautical mile

176 and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).

177 Transplant center involvement and support for social med

178 Multiple listing (ML) at >1 transplant center is one mechanism to combat the geograp

179 his article proposes that focused inquiry by transplant centers is necessary when donors are nonresid

180 Currently, the major limitation facing liver transplant centers is the shortage of organs.

181 transplant recipients referred from 4 French transplant centers (January 1, 2006-January 1, 2011) for

182 cessing the match offers more quickly at the transplant center level, enhancing the donor preselectio

183 licy changes were undertaken at national and transplant center levels to ensure safe transplantation

184 entation of the new heart allocation policy, transplant centers listed more candidates with extracorp

185 or type of KT (deceased or living donor) and transplant center location on days to acceptance varied

186 ng more than 30 miles from specialized liver transplant centers (LTC).

187 Three transplant centers mailed questionnaires to assess SWL,

188 s not accurately predict waitlist mortality, transplant centers may apply to regional review boards f

189 The same patient evaluated in different transplant centers may be offered MMUD, UCB, or haplo-HC

190 High-volume adult CHD transplant centers may have better transplant outcomes.

191 Lowering the health literacy burden by transplant centers may improve access to the liver trans

192 separate validation cohort from a different transplant center (n = 211) confirmed that CXCL9 plasma

193 te race referred for evaluation to a Georgia transplant center (N = 3) in 2014-2016.

194 N (SBN) from August 2003 to 2013 at a single transplant center (n = 66) were retrospectively compared

195 We surveyed kidney and liver transplant centers (N = 18) in New York State to assess

196 od, when the majority of patient visits to a transplant center occur.

197 ousehold income, and driving time to closest transplant center (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-

198 Retrospective analysis at a university transplant center of 665 adults with HCC who underwent a

199 althy and failing human hearts directly from transplant center operating rooms, and obtain genome-wid

200 -0.93] for each doubling in distance) or any transplant center (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96] for each

201 R: 0.510.660.84) and poor communication with transplant centers (OR: 0.580.760.98) were less likely t

202 tes listed for kidney transplant at a single transplant center over 7 years.

203 andardized mortality ratios (SMR) for kidney transplant centers over five distinct eras.

204 aks of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) at renal transplant centers over the past 2 decades.

205 Previous evaluation at a different transplant center (P = 0.029) and being on dialysis (P =

206 Regions with more transplant centers (p < 0.0001) and fewer transplants (p

207 gan donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01).

208 ors of death-censored graft failure at three transplant centers participating in the Aging Kidney Ana

209 Targeted efforts to improve transplant center participation in paired kidney exchang

210 ansplant Recipients report cards of US organ transplant center performance are publicly available and

211 rance, the need for continuous monitoring of transplant center performance has recently become appare

212 Report cards evaluating transplant center performance have received significant

213 ically considered the primary metric of lung transplant center performance in the United States.

214 We designed a novel lung transplant center performance metric that incorporates b

215 All US transplant centers performing living donor surgeries wer

216 (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transp

217 ober 2012 and October 2015 in the 6 UK heart transplant centers Preoperative donor and recipient char

218 From 2003 to 2008, US transplant centers prospectively entered information on

219 nodeficiency virus-infected patients per the transplant center protocol.

220 1 month before surgery; however, only 50% of transplant centers repeated HIV testing within 14 days b

221 Transplant leaders have focused attention on transplant center report cards as a likely cause for thi

222 resent real-world experience from a large UK transplant center reporting on VOD/SOS in consecutive HS

223 logy, liver only donor, imaging results, and transplant center request were the most common indicatio

224 tee and the revision of the Italian National Transplant Center's allocation policies, the first succe

225 Each transplant center's mean survival benefit was estimated

226 Thirty-eight liver transplant centers served a population of about 135 mill

227 kidney paired donation and suggest that all transplant centers should be actively engaged in paired

228 Transplant centers should be armed with an implementatio

229 Organ procurement organizations and transplant centers should be aware of the potential for

230 Transplant centers should be provided with tools to faci

231 Transplant centers should consider employing fall preven

232 arket competition was associated with kidney transplant center spatial clustering (P < 0.001).

233 ent of pediatric waitlist deaths occurred at transplant centers that averaged 1 or less pediatric spl

234 heaviness and is considered to be useless by transplant centers that do not perform it.

235 We conducted a survey of transplant centers that perform SLK (n = 88, 65% respons

236 integration of the concept of frailty among transplant centers, the AST and ASTS supported the effor

237 ariation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, an

238 nic graft-vs-host disease, as ascertained by transplant centers through regular patient follow-up.

239 ng for an organ removal continues in private transplant centers throughout India, service to foreign

240 or organ removal (HTOR) continues in various transplant centers throughout India.

241 tions of patients who were considered by the transplant center to be at an increased cardiovascular r

242 patients awaiting a liver transplant has led transplant centers to accept suboptimal livers.

243 We surveyed US transplant centers to assess practices regarding the eva

244 ist and the organ shortage has obligated the transplant centers to consider suboptimal grafts, such a

245 med a cross-country survey of Canadian Organ Transplant centers to determine organ utilization practi

246 ephrology practices, dialysis providers, and transplant centers to develop care coordination strategi

247 It remains important for transplant centers to maintain contact with transplant r

248 Creation of a stepwise plan will allow transplant centers to respond in a dynamic fashion to th

249 cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support intervent

250 hic areas with limited access to specialized transplant centers (TxC).

251 Controls were matched to the cases based on transplant center, type of allograft, and date of transp

252 ry outcomes included being waitlisted at any transplant center, undergoing a transplantation, and sur

253 ated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater un

254 er LT from 2002 to 2016 were reviewed from 3 transplant centers (University of California San Francis

255 rwent LT between 2002 and 2012 at 3 academic transplant centers (University of California-San Francis

256 Although most lung transplant centers use antifungal prophylaxis, consensus

257 Transplant centers use their best clinical judgment for

258 Forty-four percent of transplant centers used HIV nucleic acid testing (NAT) t

259 the likelihood of PP use, and clustering on transplant center using multivariable logistic regressio

260 the patient's permanent home zip code to the transplant center using SAS URL access to GoogleMaps.

261 ho underwent LT at the University of Toronto transplant center using the C concordance statistic and

262 nd geographic (eg, distance to closest liver transplant center) variables.

263 Across Europe, transplant centers vary in the content of the psychosoci

264 waitlisted at a VATC and 2523 (5.3%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs).

265 waitlisted at a VATC and 372 (10.9%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs).

266 The impact of transplant center volume on pancreas allograft survival

267 Average annual transplant center volume was categorized by tertiles int

268 ne oxygenation support, transplant year, and transplant center volume were associated with 1-year pos

269 association of report card evaluations with transplant center volume.

270 pient sex, recipient hemodynamic status, and transplant center volume.

271 cross-sectional patient cohort from a third transplant center was analyzed; however, serum (rather t

272 ntation, greater distance from a VATC or any transplant center was associated with lower likelihood o

273 sed study of US heart transplant candidates, transplant center was associated with the survival benef

274 ective multicenter study from 3 French renal transplant centers was conducted, including 123 transpla

275 of starting dialysis at any of the 3 Georgia transplant centers was the primary outcome; placement on

276 Using data from four transplant centers, we identified all liver transplant c

277 Transplant centers were assessed by status as the highes

278 et characteristics, larger numbers of kidney transplant centers were associated with more kidney tran

279 Data on 2322 patients from 49 transplant centers were enrolled and met inclusion crite

280 Kidney transplant centers were geocoded to measure spatial orga

281 nsplantation (LT) between 2007 and 2017 in 5 transplant centers were included (n = 152).

282 r hundred eighty-two SOT recipients from >50 transplant centers were included: 318 (66%) kidney or ki

283 idates undergoing transplant evaluation at 2 transplant centers were randomized to use Inform Me afte

284 ant evaluation and their family/friends at 2 transplant centers were randomized to view Informate bef

285 ilizing SMV+SOF with or without RBV at three transplant centers were retrospectively reviewed.

286 throughout the same time period in Region 9 transplant centers, where a broad sharing agreement had

287 nce for clustering of alemtuzumab use within transplant centers which did not impact long-term outcom

288 uded in the consensus statement was that all transplant centers which have performed living donor sur

289 the medical records of 391 patients from two transplant centers who underwent LT for HCC.

290 This study reports the experience of a large transplant center with controlled DCDD.

291 Transplant centers with high false-positive HCC rates ma

292 Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social me

293 use this surgical approach should be made in transplant centers with significant expertise in both la

294 variation in the criteria used for SLK among transplant centers, with few centers following the curre

295 for creatinine, bilirubin, and sodium in all transplant centers within United Network for Organ Shari

296 listed for liver transplantation at a single transplant center without MELD exceptions were assessed

297 The additional workload placed on transplant centers without additional funding will creat

298 me of transplantation, are performed in many transplant centers worldwide.

299 outcomes for patients treated in low-volume transplant centers would be improved by reorganizing cen

300 rious flagging of many adequately-performing transplant centers, yet the methods used by CMS fail to