ライフサイエンスコーパス: AVR

1 AVR (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0

2 AVR in the young achieves good results, with the Ross be

3 AVR is associated with better survival than medical ther

4 AVR occurred in 24% of patients.

5 AVR procedures were compared after advanced matching, bo

6 AVR proteins from Hyaloperonospora parasitica and Phytop

7 AVR rate was 16% (18/115).

8 AVR was associated with reduced mortality in patients wi

9 AVR was performed in 123 patients (47%).

10 AVR was strongly associated with the patients tested pos

11 AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) belong to a large family with >30 p

12 AVR-Pii interaction with OsExo70-F3 appears to play a cr

13 ng open aortic valve surgery without (51.1%; AVR) or with (48.9%; AVR + CABG) concomitant coronary ar

14 039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single institution.

15 104 transapical (TA) TAVR patients, and 351 AVR patients; the PARTNER-B arm included 179 TF-TAVR pat

16 l 30-day mortality was 10.7% (CVG) and 3.6% (AVR).

17 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone.

18 surgery without (51.1%; AVR) or with (48.9%; AVR + CABG) concomitant coronary artery bypass graft sur

19 We examined long-term survival among 145 911 AVR patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing AVR at 1026

20 After AVR, NFLG had a smaller reduction in LV mass index (-3+/

21 , and follow-up of patients before and after AVR.

22 natural history of thoracic aortopathy after AVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease is su

23 ong-term rates of aortic complications after AVR observed in patients with Marfan syndrome compared w

24 h increased mortality or heart failure after AVR in patients with LV dysfunction.

25 e of death or congestive heart failure after AVR.

26 tle is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival.

27 ves, and patients who died within 48 h after AVR were excluded.

28 In-hospital mortality was higher after AVR+ARE (4.3% versus 3.0%, P=0.008), although when the c

29 Poor outcomes after AVR are associated with low-flow low-gradient aortic ste

30 on the contemporary long-term outcomes after AVR in older individuals.

31 sought to report and compare outcomes after AVR in the young using data from a national database.

32 normal flow had similar survival rates after AVR.

33 The risk of stroke after AVR in the general population is approximately 1.5%, and

34 Clinical stroke after AVR was more common than reported previously, more than

35 Survival after AVR or AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting was most favo

36 natriuretic peptides before and 1 year after AVR.

37 inical and hemodynamic outcomes 1 year after AVR.

38 horacic echocardiography within 1 year after AVR.

39 At 5 years after AVR, overall survival was 72 +/- 4% in LEF group, 81 +/-

40 itivity of telaprevir (TVR) and alisporivir (AVR) in different genotypes, and showed differences in 5

41 formed AVR-Pia mutants showed that, although AVR-Pia associates with additional sites in RGA5, bindin

42 Among AVR+CABG patients, there were 2890 patients <80 years of

43 Among AVR, there were 3304 patients <80 years of age, 419 pati

44 suggesting patients are best served when an AVR is performed before even minor reductions in myocard

45 AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) belong to a large family with >30 paralogues in

46 ther reported fungal AVR genes, AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) encode proteins that lack secretion signal pepti

47 We identify AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) of barley powdery mildew fungus, Blumeria gramin

48 ng a pandemic with co-circulation of AVS and AVR strains, our method can be used to inform optimal us

49 factors should undergo early diagnostics and AVR+CABG before ischemic myocardial damage occurs.

50 are at high risk the development of DSA and AVR posttransplant regardless of their pretransplant PRA

51 r null findings with respect to RS3, RS1 and AVR, polymorphisms associated with musical ability by ot

52 variable number tandem repeats RS1, RS3 and AVR in the AVPR1A (arginine vasopressin receptor 1a) gen

53 eaked after randomization in the TA-TAVR and AVR groups, falling to low levels commensurate with the

54 th costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important diff

55 eased, such that within 2 years, TF-TAVR and AVR patients had similar survival rates.

56 In high-risk patients, TA-TAVR and AVR were associated with elevated peri-procedural risk m

57 dian age, 13.0 versus 20.9 years; P=0.02) at AVR.

58 Among valve failure patients, median age at AVR was 12 years (range, 10-21 years).

59 R proteins recognize avirulence (AVR) molecules from parasites in a gene-for-gene manner

60 to August 2014, 7039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single institution.

61 Before AVR, they were characterized by similar symptom burden b

62 7.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being

63 reatment within 6 months after bioprosthetic AVR surgery was associated with increased cardiovascular

64 tients were identified who had bioprosthetic AVR surgery performed between January 1, 1997, and Decem

65 h that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only

66 The glutamate-gated chloride channel AVR-14 is expressed in HOA.

67 ter adjustment for baseline characteristics, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of in-

68 P-2 promotes UNC-7 electrical communication, AVR-14-mediated inhibitory signals pass from HOA to PCB.

69 Clinical stroke complicating AVR is associated with increased length of stay and mort

70 proteins in the soluble fraction comprising AVR-Pii and OsExo70-F2 and OsExo70-F3, two rice Exo70 pr

71 The Haemonchus contortus AVR-14B GluCl was inhibited by propofol with an IC50 val

72 endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, AVR, and HF hospitalization.

73 in mortality risk per quartile of decreasing AVR (P = .02).

74 was significantly associated with decreasing AVR (P = .008) and CRAE (P = .016).

75 arries the risks of cardiac surgery; delayed AVR due to unrecognized symptoms can result in a dismal

76 , mortality was not statistically different (AVR+ARE: 1.7% versus AVR: 1.1%, P=0.29).

77 Multiple copies of related but distinct AVR effector paralogues might enable populations of Bgh

78 r studies are needed to determine if earlier AVR in these patients might improve clinical outcome.

79 sis from reported studies comparing an early AVR strategy to active surveillance, with an emphasis on

80 tomatic severe AS who may benefit from early AVR, the optimal management of these patients remains un

81 5 recognizes the Magnaporthe oryzae effector AVR-Pia through direct interaction.

82 ognition of the unrelated M. oryzae effector AVR-Pia, indicating that the corresponding R proteins po

83 nteract with the Magnaporthe oryzae effector AVR-Pii.

84 as to develop a simple method for estimating AVR fitness from surveillance data.

85 ic patients who would benefit from expedited AVR with the goal to reduce mortality.

86 lar geometry and pressure overload following AVR, therefore we aimed to investigate the relationship

87 ith PPM had less regression of SMR following AVR compared with those with no PPM (change in mitral re

88 between PPM and regression of SMR following AVR for aortic valve stenosis.

89 ated with lesser regression of SMR following AVR.

90 For AVR plus coronary artery bypass graft procedures, median

91 The optimal choice for AVR in each age group is not clear.

92 ment of MR should serve as an indication for AVR even in asymptomatic patients.

93 AVR and 33%, 43%, and 24%, respectively, for AVR.

94 tests were at significantly higher risk for AVR compared to those patients negative for both tests (

95 ssociated with the various access routes for AVR have not been well characterized.

96 In contrast with other reported fungal AVR genes, AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) encode proteins that lac

97 Furthermore, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of pos

98 ntrast with other reported fungal AVR genes, AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) encode proteins that lack secretion

99 9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being significantly younger when

100 We identify AVR(a10) and AVR(k1) of barley powdery mildew fungus, Bl

101 to be required for resistance as an inactive AVR-Pia allele did not bind RGA5-A.

102 Structure-informed AVR-Pia mutants showed that, although AVR-Pia associates

103 al use of antivirals by monitoring intrinsic AVR fitness and drug pressure on the AVS strain.

104 8 patients > 20 years of age having isolated AVR at Baylor University Medical Center from 1993 to 200

105 Although only 5% of isolated AVR patients had a high Society of Thoracic Surgeons per

106 ortality across EF strata among the isolated AVR cohort.

107 ents aged > or =65 years undergoing isolated AVR (with or without bypass surgery) in 1045 US hospital

108 urvivorship for patients undergoing isolated AVR was 11.5 years (<80 years), 6.8 years (80 to 84 year

109 and >/= 80 years of age undergoing isolated AVR was 13, 9, and 6 years, respectively.

110 419 patients with AS who underwent isolated AVR at 2 institutions and presenting moderate SMR (mitra

111 of pure AR severe enough to warrant isolated AVR are diverse.

112 t a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution.

113 .8% had a Ross procedure, 37.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR

114 le between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR.

115 followed by comparable results in mechanical AVR and Ross, with 86.3% and 89.6%, respectively.

116 with aortic reintervention in the mechanical AVR.

117 ion) at 10 years when compared to mechanical AVR (p = 0.05).

118 ormal angiopoietin-Tie2 signaling, medullary AVR exhibited an unusual hybrid endothelial phenotype, e

119 ared with the first 3 decades (1961-1990) of AVR, patients having this operation during the fourth an

120 The absence of AVR associated with rapid accumulation of fluid and cyst

121 s into the molecular and structural bases of AVR-Pia-RGA5 interaction and the role of the RATX1 decoy

122 aging experiments revealed direct binding of AVR-Pia and AVR1-CO39 to RGA5-A, providing evidence for

123 AF was a common complication of AVR with a cumulative incidence of >40% in elderly patie

124 Effect of AVR and concomitant mitral valve repair were investigate

125 x model to explore the independent effect of AVR on outcome.

126 The protective effect of AVR was similar in 125 patients with normal flow (stroke

127 nce systems to provide reliable estimates of AVR fitness in real time.

128 nce systems to provide reliable estimates of AVR fitness in real time.

129 a simple method for real-time estimation of AVR fitness from surveillance data.

130 experimental conditions, over-expression of AVR-Pii or knockdown of OsExo70-F2 and -F3 genes in rice

131 We defined the fitness of AVR strains as their reproductive number relative to the

132 ty death index and analyzed as a function of AVR adjusted for the propensity score.

133 studies of mortality and survival impact of AVR in patients with low-gradient (LG) AS and preserved

134 -Meier analysis revealed that performance of AVR (n=53) was associated with a better survival (P=0.00

135 Performance of AVR and concomitant mitral valve repair is associated wi

136 However, the performance of AVR in these patients is associated with a mortality ben

137 Performance of AVR was associated with a better survival in those with

138 y that the mildew fungus has a repertoire of AVR genes, which may function as effectors and contribut

139 ide genetic evidence of the critical role of AVR in the countercurrent exchange mechanism and the str

140 ata are insufficient to assess the safety of AVR with other pericardial bioprostheses in children and

141 Surveillance of AVR fitness is therefore essential.

142 th TAVR, and in the only randomized trial of AVR versus TAVR, there was an increased risk of 30-day s

143 There is a clear reluctance to offer AVR in a large number of patients with severe AR associa

144 Survival after AVR or AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting was most favorable a

145 ations who were randomized to either TAVR or AVR in the PARTNER Trial.

146 een baseline and 1 year after either TAVR or AVR.

147 igh surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR.

148 In symptomatic patients, AVR improves symptoms, improves survival, and, in patien

149 role for OsExo70 as a decoy or helper in Pii/AVR-Pii interactions.

150 ng that they were likely to be the potential AVR genes.

151 Unselected premature AVR carries the risks of cardiac surgery; delayed AVR du

152 h angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 prevents AVR formation in mice.

153 aortic valve disease) who underwent primary AVR without replacement of the ascending aorta in New Yo

154 so underwent concomitant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P=0.31).

155 easurements for rejection were biopsy-proven AVR episodes within first 6 months of the transplant.

156 , and summarized as the arteriovenous ratio (AVR).

157 alent (CRVE), and arteriole-to-venule ratio (AVR) at baseline.

158 alent (CRVE), and arteriole-to-venule ratio (AVR) at baseline.

159 Only 39% had an isolated redo AVR, the rest were combination surgeries (coronary bypas

160 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, and (2) assess the outcomes of these patients, alon

161 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, baseline LV-GLS provides incremental prognostic use

162 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, the majority undergo combination surgeries but have

163 tic patients with severe PAS undergoing redo AVR, we sought to determine whether LV-GLS provides incr

164 (63+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, sev

165 (64+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo-AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, sev

166 tibodies (DSA) and acute vascular rejection (AVR) than panel reactive HLA antibodies (PRA).

167 eart failure after aortic valve replacement (AVR) according to preoperative left ventricular (LV) fun

168 ement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthesis implantation and may b

169 The benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) among NFLG patients is controversial.

170 CAD) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (AS+CABG) with

171 ting open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are poorly characterized.

172 tcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) as the population ages and transcatheter options em

173 ared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high s

174 tients who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis with reduced preoperativ

175 ltimately requires aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe valve obstruction.

176 enough to warrant aortic valve replacement (AVR) have received little attention in the last 20 years

177 vasive approach to aortic valve replacement (AVR) improves clinical outcomes in diabetic patients wit

178 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) a

179 e for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter V

180 rta at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in these patients is controversial and has been ext

181 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicated for symptomatic severe A

182 Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the standard of care for the treatment of o

183 (n=161) undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) were randomized intraoperatively to receive either

184 idelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is severely stenotic and the

185 r, Minn, underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with 19- or 21-mm St Jude Medical prostheses and ha

186 ion after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with biological prostheses is not well examined.

187 Experience with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with current-generation pericardial bioprostheses i

188 (C) indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR), but its prevalence is unknown.

189 ced after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there is important interindividual variability

190 mary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic st

191 mary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic st

192 nosis via surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and

193 ions available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative reports in the literature.

194 ethods of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR)-transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaorti

195 urvival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

196 vere AS undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

197 y be similar after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

198 (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

199 lve surgery during aortic valve replacement (AVR).

200 (AS) benefit from aortic valve replacement (AVR).

201 atients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

202 iving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

203 al flow (NF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

204 e CVG (and 37,102 aortic valve replacements [AVR] as a reference group) procedures from 1986 to 2004.

205 d was slightly smaller in patients requiring AVR+ARE versus AVR (23.4+/-2.1 versus 24.1+/-2.3, P<0.00

206 This event showed that antiviral-resistant (AVR) strains can be intrinsically more transmissible tha

207 Adjusted for the propensity score, AVR was associated with a significantly lower mortality

208 Smaller AVR was associated with reduced visual field by Goldmann

209 There was a weak association between smaller AVR and worse CS (P = .07).

210 eased morbidity and mortality after surgical AVR for AS.

211 Long-term survival after surgical AVR in the elderly is excellent, although patients with

212 n-Meier estimates of survival after surgical AVR.

213 ictors of all-cause mortality after surgical AVR.

214 Procedure rates for surgical AVR alone and with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) s

215 In surgical AVR, the presence of LGE predicted higher post-operative

216 Between 1999 and 2011, the rate of surgical AVR for elderly patients in the United States increased

217 ER) 1 Trial with successful TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR) obtained preimplantation and at 7 days, 1 and

218 ssigned to receive transcatheter or surgical AVR.

219 now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis

220 and is a reasonable alternative to surgical AVR in high-risk patients.

221 and may be an important adjunct to surgical AVR in the transcatheter valve-in-valve era.

222 f 2.9 years, 21 patients undergoing surgical AVR and 20 undergoing TAVR died.

223 of myocardial infarction undergoing surgical AVR and in 40 AS patients undergoing transcatheter aorti

224 esent in 29% of patients undergoing surgical AVR and in 50% undergoing TAVR.

225 ed in 60% of patients who underwent surgical AVR (SAVR), in 53% after TA-TAVR, in 33% after TAo-TAVR

226 w deaths occurred after TAVR versus surgical AVR or standard therapy.

227 useful benchmark for outcomes with surgical AVR for older patients eligible for surgery considering

228 ith transcatheter AVR compared with surgical AVR.

229 ever, in most patients with severe symptoms, AVR is lifesaving.

230 zes and were more likely to be emergent than AVR patients.

231 with 2-fold greater all-cause mortality than AVR.

232 The AVR procedure rate increased by 19 (95% CI, 19-20) proce

233 conferred 30-day survival benefit among the AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting population (EF>/=50%

234 -protein interaction analyses identified the AVR-Pia interaction surface that binds to the RATX1 doma

235 up, 105 patients died (40%): 32 (30%) in the AVR group and 73 (70%) in the medical treatment group.

236 al (post-30-day) survival was similar to the AVR cohort.

237 Surgical ARE is a safe adjunct to AVR in the modern era.

238 TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high su

239 incremental operative risk of adding ARE to AVR has not been established.

240 del that reflected likelihood of referral to AVR.

241 ith LF-LG were less likely to be referred to AVR (odds ratio: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.49).

242 n improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.

243 uivalent conditional longer-term survival to AVR.

244 Transcatheter AVR is now available for patients with severe comorbidit

245 evere other valve disease, and transcatheter AVR).

246 AS, severe other valve disease transcatheter AVR, and LV ejection fraction <50%).

247 al failure from treatment with transcatheter AVR compared with surgical AVR.

248 for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.

249 AVR patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing AVR at 1026 centers with participation in the Society of

250 of mortality in patients with AS undergoing AVR and could provide additional information in the pre-

251 are fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing AVR in the United States between 1999 and 2011.

252 ea and normal stroke volume index undergoing AVR underwent echocardiography, magnetic resonance imagi

253 Patients undergoing AVR for severe aortic stenosis were analyzed using the N

254 For patients undergoing AVR who are at risk of severe mismatch, every effort sho

255 Young patients undergoing AVR with Mitroflow LXA pericardial valves are at high ri

256 te the early outcomes of patients undergoing AVR with or without ARE.

257 Patients undergoing AVR+ARE were more likely to be female (46% versus 34%, P

258 rs (> or =85 years); for patients undergoing AVR+CABG, median survivorship was 9.4 years (<80 years),

259 in more than half of the patients undergoing AVR.

260 jects >/=65 years of age who were undergoing AVR for calcific aortic stenosis.

261 wed records of 27 patients who had undergone AVR (median follow-up, 13.7 months) with a bovine perica

262 1990 to August 2014, 7039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single instituti

263 A total of 5277 patients underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis between 1992 and 2008.

264 1991 to July 2010, 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone.

265 e of patients with isolated AS who underwent AVR alone.

266 al of 231 consecutive patients who underwent AVR for degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) between March

267 A total of 1,501 patients who underwent AVR in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2012 were inc

268 th severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent AVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.

269 nds a predictably high mortality rate unless AVR is performed.

270 - and v3-ARV (each pairwise comparison to v1-AVR yields P < 0.01); in contrast, the DCGS rates were s

271 Most patients received bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P=0.98) and also under

272 bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P=0.98) and also underwent concomitant cardi

273 tant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P=0.31).

274 tatistically different (AVR+ARE: 1.7% versus AVR: 1.1%, P=0.29).

275 smaller in patients requiring AVR+ARE versus AVR (23.4+/-2.1 versus 24.1+/-2.3, P<0.001).

276 perior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0

277 was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034-

278 Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2

279 quivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4

280 cant health status benefits with TAVR versus AVR at 1 month (difference, 9.9 points; 95% confidence i

281 heter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus AVR (PARTNER-A arm) or standard therapy (PARTNER-B arm).

282 .003 vs. 0.117 +/- 0.015 muM for G3, whereas AVR IC50 for G1 was 0.139 +/- 0.013 vs. 0.044 +/- 0.007

283 stment, there was no survival advantage with AVR in asymptomatic, severe AS with LV dysfunction (p =

284 ome was the survival benefit associated with AVR.

285 of in-hospital mortality when compared with AVR (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.4

286 nstrated no benefits with TAVR compared with AVR at any time point.

287 onomically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access.

288 TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (increm

289 Compared with AVR patients, medically treated patients had a higher pr

290 l but differing adverse events compared with AVR.

291 Similar benefit occurred with AVR in patients with NF-LG (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.

292 ejection fraction, and improved outcome with AVR.

293 Furthermore, patients with AVR are more likely to produce DSA than those without AV

294 A total of 3112 patients with AVR were assessed in a follow-up clinic with echocardiog

295 Of the 18 patients with AVR, 14 were positive for sCD30, and 13 of them (93%) de

296 of low-gradient severe aortic stenosis with AVR or medical therapy.

297 ttransplant sera of patients with or without AVR were tested for the presence of DSA.

298 <50% have a poor prognosis, with or without AVR.

299 splant (p = 0.001) Nineteen patients without AVR were tested for DSA and sCD30 concentrations.

300 ore likely to produce DSA than those without AVR (p = 0.02).