ライフサイエンスコーパス: transplant evaluation

1 sis, future surveillance, and triaging early transplant evaluation.

2 part be ameliorated by earlier referral for transplant evaluation.

3 and nucleic acid testing obtained during the transplant evaluation.

4 006, 202 patients with HCC were referred for transplant evaluation.

5 ersity center for clinical management and/or transplant evaluation.

6 st drop out and explored predictors of early transplant evaluation.

7 ssions regarding patients referred for heart transplant evaluation.

8 ly liver dysfunction indicating the need for transplant evaluation.

9 eu that needs to be addressed is part of the transplant evaluation.

10 pients (156/645) were smokers at the time of transplant evaluation.

11 tly higher for those who quit smoking before transplant evaluation.

12 alence of ACKD and renal cancer during renal transplant evaluation.

13 h records of US veterans referred for kidney transplant evaluation.

14 n March 2010 and October 2012 at the time of transplant evaluation.

15 alized, and collaborative approach to kidney transplant evaluation.

16 hould help candidates identify PLDs early in transplant evaluation.

17 the pathogenic Val142Ile TTR variant during transplant evaluation.

18 tudied adults with cirrhosis referred to for transplant evaluation.

19 ist dropout and explored predictors of early transplant evaluation.

20 ntial remains lacking, especially for kidney transplant evaluations.

21 Substance use data were retrieved from transplant evaluations.

22 108 consecutive patients referred for heart transplant evaluation, 80 were placed on a waiting list,

23 rrected iothalamate clearance at the time of transplant evaluation and 1 year posttransplant and also

24 hone interviews (shortly after initiation of transplant evaluation and after being accepted or found

25 findings illustrate the importance of early transplant evaluation and consideration of transplant pr

26 dition of 3D-printed liver models during the transplant evaluation and organ procurement process is a

27 and outcomes demonstrated improved rates of transplant evaluation and referrals and decreased short-

28 Dominant themes pertaining to the kidney transplant evaluation and selection process identified t

29 Hispanic patients initiating transplant evaluation and their family/friends at 2 tran

30 ary medicine encounter, 4198 undergoing lung transplant evaluation, and 1378 on the lung transplant w

31 unctional class are not usually referred for transplant evaluations, as they are considered to be at

32 Kidney transplant candidates undergoing transplant evaluation at 2 transplant centers were rando

33 f patients referred and scheduled for kidney transplant evaluation at a single center from November 2

34 Adult patients referred for renal transplant evaluation at a single transplant center in t

35 ysis typically require a referral for kidney transplant evaluation at a transplant center from a dial

36 ample of 82 HF patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation at an academic medical center duri

37 - 10 years old (mean +/- SD) who underwent a transplant evaluation at Columbia Presbyterian Medical C

38 We enrolled 802 patients pursuing transplant evaluation at the University of California, L

39 ated using the Cockcroft-Gault method at the transplant evaluation; at the day of transplantation; an

40 tiorgan injury, and allow time to complete a transplant evaluation before long-term circulatory suppo

41 years in all children supports the role for transplant evaluation before treatment failure.

42 ient registry who underwent their first lung transplant evaluation between 2001 and 2009.

43 eated with dialysis were referred for kidney transplant evaluation between 2005 and 2011, but there w

44 e renal disease patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation between November 1991 and February

45 alcoholic cirrhosis were referred for liver transplant evaluation between September 1996 and May 199

46 rivate health insurance), uncertainty during transplant evaluation (difficulty navigating the evaluat

47 r, he was referred to our hospital for liver transplant evaluation due to new diagnosis of decompensa

48 >/=18 years of age undergoing primary renal transplant evaluation during a 10-year period.

49 Some patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation fail to attend the visit.

50 to calculate 5yCSS probabilities for use in transplant evaluation for individual colorectal cancer p

51 ata to risk stratify patients and prioritize transplant evaluation for patients with SDS with high-ri

52 oidosis and heart failure referred for heart transplant evaluation from 1997 to 2004 were included in

53 ive study of 1,597 subjects undergoing renal transplant evaluation from June 1, 2006, to March 31, 20

54 50 years of age and over who underwent lung transplant evaluations from 1996 to 1999.

55 ed has been defined, and its value in kidney transplant evaluation has not been demonstrated.

56 a 39% lower likelihood of proceeding to lung transplant evaluation (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.51-0.74]).

57 0.68]) despite a 69% increased likelihood of transplant evaluation (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.36-2.09]).

58 2.17]), 90% more likely to die prior to lung transplant evaluation (HR, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.77-2.04]), 40

59 omic variables was made at the time of renal transplant evaluation in 450 consecutive candidates, 128

60 ncrease referral of patients on dialysis for transplant evaluation in the Reducing Disparities in Acc

61 with advanced HF, and a timely referral for transplant evaluation (instead of conventional cardiac i

62 thesize that decreased LVEF at time of renal transplant evaluation is an independent risk factor for

63 in patients with cirrhosis undergoing liver transplant evaluation is associated with better short-te

64 sease (ESRD) patients from initiating kidney transplant evaluation is unknown.

65 these patients may not even be referred for transplant evaluation, much less be waitlisted or actual

66 plant survival and is best incorporated into transplant evaluations on a continuous basis given limit

67 of previous alcoholic rehabilitation before transplant evaluation, P=0.001; and (V) failure to accep

68 he following 4 dominant themes regarding the transplant evaluation process emerged: (1) far-reaching

69 lity in access to care and promptness of the transplant evaluation process in the United States.

70 nce patients' ability to complete the kidney transplant evaluation process.

71 atively recent addition of the HCT-CI to the transplant evaluation process.

72 sment of Candidates for Transplantation, and Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale-were developed and va

73 val from the initial onset of advanced HF to transplant evaluation, the lower the odds of being liste

74 arities were observed in access to referral, transplant evaluation, waitlisting and organ receipt.

75 Survival at 1-year after heart transplant evaluation was higher among transplanted pati

76 ociated with rate of completion of the renal transplant evaluation were analyzed using a retrospectiv

77 epted guidelines, many patients referred for transplant evaluation were not considered eligible for t

78 ECGs at pre-transplant evaluation were reviewed using the Minnesota

79 derations for extracorporeal elimination and transplant evaluation, were addressed.

80 (GFR), assessed by Cr-EDTA clearance at pre-transplant evaluation, were retrospectively enrolled (n=

81 proved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer.

82 Referral for kidney transplant evaluation within 1 year of starting dialysis

83 Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral.