ライフサイエンスコーパス: delayed graft function

1 ansplant/de novo donor-specific antibody and delayed graft function.

2 ascular thrombosis, especially when there is delayed graft function.

3 index higher than 27 kg/m, and occurrence of delayed graft function.

4 terial occlusion in transplanted grafts with delayed graft function.

5 ents receiving renal transplants at risk for delayed graft function.

6 help in understanding the pathophysiology of delayed graft function.

7 g for registry-based risk factors, including delayed graft function.

8 ar ejection fraction, low serum albumin, and delayed graft function.

9 tomy was associated with no mortality and no delayed graft function.

10 r sensitization, paucity of live donors, and delayed graft function.

11 There was no delayed graft function.

12 f hospital stay, time to return to work, and delayed graft function.

13 ocesses could lead to decreased incidence of delayed graft function.

14 There were no surgical complications or delayed graft function.

15 of acute rejection but not the incidence of delayed graft function.

16 n from older donors and deceased donors, and delayed graft function.

17 with 100% 2-year graft survival and without delayed graft function.

18 is (with a functioning graft) and 2 cases of delayed graft function.

19 reperfusion injury (IRI) is a major cause of delayed graft function.

20 nce of acute tubular necrosis and consequent delayed graft function.

21 stricture, urine leak, hernia formation, and delayed graft function.

22 on was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function.

23 transplantation may facilitate recovery from delayed graft function.

24 endotoxin to the Liberase solution similarly delayed graft function.

25 GP1 was associated with early graft loss and delayed graft function.

26 k factor for worse 1-year graft survival was delayed graft function.

27 raft function compared with patients without delayed graft function.

28 duce cold ischemia time and the incidence of delayed graft function.

29 e is an association between hemodialysis and delayed graft function.

30 ant recipients deemed to be at high risk for delayed graft function.

31 s are frequently associated with a period of delayed graft function.

32 r 6-month eGFR only among recipients without delayed graft function.

33 loss caused by thrombosis and a high risk of delayed graft function.

34 donor, post-kidney transplantation SSIs, and delayed graft function.

35 antation renal biopsies (PIB) as markers for delayed graft function.

36 There was no delayed graft function (0%).

37 ces between induction groups for outcomes of delayed graft function, 1-year acute rejection, 1-year B

38 esponding 29.4% decrease in the incidence of delayed graft function (10% vs. 34%, P=0.02), and a 10%

39 of immediate function and significantly less delayed graft function (12.2% vs. 21.2%).

40 7% SIR-NLD, P=0.04) and a lower incidence of delayed graft function (21% SIR-LD vs. 39% SIR-NLD, P<0.

41 Incidence of delayed graft function (25.8% vs 28.6%, P = 0.12), and 1

42 ilure/rejection (16.7% vs 16.8%; P = 0.897), delayed graft function (29.97% vs 29.36%; P = 0.457) or

43 Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte ind

44 The incidence of delayed graft function (38% vs. 26%), cold ischemia time

45 f graft loss (9.2% and 10.2%, respectively), delayed graft function (40.4% and 44.5%), and death (4.3

46 more than 50 years (30%), and patients with delayed graft function (47%).

47 low was not associated with the incidence of delayed graft function (5 vs. 2, P=NS), early rejection

48 R and other causes of allograft dysfunction; delayed graft function (54+/-7.8 micromol/L), urinary tr

49 .85 kg), but there was a higher incidence of delayed graft function (7 of 11 vs. 1 of 16; P=0.002).

50 to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral co

51 acute rejection (12% vs. 16%; P<0.0001) and delayed graft function (8% vs. 23%; P<0.0001).

52 There were no differences between groups in delayed graft function, acute or chronic rejection, post

53 cyte antigens mismatches, immunosuppression, delayed graft function, acute rejection [AR]), previous

54 The occurrence of delayed graft function, acute rejection requiring antily

55 e (CIT) are associated with higher levels of delayed graft function, acute rejection, and early graft

56 Furthermore, patients with delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis who were t

57 t to kidney allograft recipients who develop delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis.

58 d by those programs include a higher rate of delayed graft function, additional dialysis requirements

59 Delayed graft function affected 45% of the DCD recipient

60 Donor pretreatment with NAC does not improve delayed graft function after kidney transplantation.

61 -reperfusion (I/R) is a major contributor to delayed graft function after renal transplantation.

62 , donor age more than 50 years (HR=1.86) and delayed graft function after retransplant (HR=1.95).

63 reduces the frequency of acute rejection and delayed graft function after transplantation.

64 s before function returned and two developed delayed graft function; all transplanted livers and panc

65 c criteria significantly reduced the rate of delayed graft function among recipients.

66 No patients experienced delayed graft function and 10 (5%) developed acute rejec

67 After SLKT, 39% experienced delayed graft function and 20.7% had RAF.

68 ents of elderly DCD kidneys experienced more delayed graft function and acute rejection than did elde

69 associated with adverse outcomes, including delayed graft function and biopsy-proven acute rejection

70 ort-term and overall graft survival, and for delayed graft function and complications.

71 Machine perfusion techniques have decreased delayed graft function and could improve graft survival.

72 iod could help to ameliorate the severity of delayed graft function and could provide a path to using

73 ion injury IRI results in increased rates of delayed graft function and early graft loss.

74 Thirteen (40%) recipients had delayed graft function and four lost the grafts.

75 preservation period reduces the incidence of delayed graft function and improves graft survival.

76 on injury (IRI) significantly contributes to delayed graft function and inflammation, leading to graf

77 ning a mechanism underlying the link between delayed graft function and long-term allograft failure.

78 (null) cell frequencies were associated with delayed graft function and lower estimated glomerular fi

79 The incidence of delayed graft function and mean serum creatinine at 3 an

80 tch (RXM) demonstrated a higher incidence of delayed graft function and of acute rejection and graft

81 ed to within a few hours and correlates with delayed graft function and organ failure.

82 The incidence of delayed graft function and predischarge acute rejection

83 Patients with delayed graft function and those with GFR < 30 mL/min at

84 ferior outcome that was not significant, and delayed graft function and warm ischaemic time had no ef

85 GFR), and incidence of acute rejection (AR), delayed graft function and/or graft loss at 2 years post

86 t graft dysfunction (primary nonfunction and delayed graft function) and were an independent risk fac

87 y outcomes were discard, cold-ischemia time, delayed graft function, and 1-year graft loss.

88 d graft survival, chronic allograft failure, delayed graft function, and acute rejection (AR).

89 e than 65 years, five to six HLA mismatches, delayed graft function, and acute rejection were indepen

90 Ischemic damage is the most common cause of delayed graft function, and although it is known that ti

91 afts is associated with tubular cell injury, delayed graft function, and an increased incidence of ac

92 We found that the degree of HLA mismatch, delayed graft function, and AR were the only significant

93 ultivariate analysis revealed recipient age, delayed graft function, and BMI >30 to be independent ri

94 tibody >10%, congestive heart failure (CHF), delayed graft function, and cellular rejection.

95 ass index, waiting time, cold ischemic time, delayed graft function, and coronary risk factors showed

96 5- and 10-year graft survival, incidence of delayed graft function, and estimated glomerular filtrat

97 r GFR at 18 months independent of rejection, delayed graft function, and ethnicity.

98 iteria donors, race, cytomegalovirus status, delayed graft function, and immunologic risks were simil

99 ded patient and graft survival, incidence of delayed graft function, and incidence and severity of bi

100 have a significantly decreased incidence of delayed graft function, and lower serum creatinines up t

101 idney transplant recipients, 31% experienced delayed graft function, and mean+/-SD 6-month eGFR was 5

102 included 1-year graft and patient survival, delayed graft function, and need for posttransplant dial

103 splantation), a significantly higher rate of delayed graft function, and significantly higher levels

104 g public insurance, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, and steroid withdrawal; in these

105 les (presence or absence of acute rejection, delayed graft function, and therapy with mycophenolate m

106 owing variables were recorded: demographics; delayed graft function; AR at 3, 6, and 12 months; time

107 of Foley catheter, ureteral stent, age, and delayed graft function are independent risk factors for

108 lly important in ischemia-reperfusion injury/delayed graft function as well as in acute and chronic a

109 ere found between patients with immediate or delayed graft function at D7.

110 comorbidities (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.04-3.86), delayed graft function at the time of discharge (OR, 1.6

111 Xenon protects allografts against delayed graft function, attenuates acute immune rejectio

112 ath (DCD) kidneys suffer a high incidence of delayed graft function attributable to warm ischemia and

113 sirolimus permits a window of recovery from delayed graft function before the introduction of reduce

114 DCD kidneys (vs. static storage) may reduce delayed graft function but has no effect on long-term or

115 eptance in the match-run was associated with delayed graft function but not all-cause allograft failu

116 th donor thrombi were more likely to exhibit delayed graft function, but graft function at 1 and 2 ye

117 race, HLA mismatch, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, cold ischemia time, time since s

118 d earlier (6.5 versus 15 d) in patients with delayed graft function compared with patients without de

119 s were younger and less likely to experience delayed graft function compared with recipient of ECD ki

120 s: donor AKI (stage 2 or greater), recipient delayed graft function (defined as dialysis in first wee

121 Primary outcomes were delayed graft function, defined as dialysis during the f

122 s posttransplant, only 1 of 22 patients with delayed graft function developed biopsy-proven rejection

123 Delayed graft function developed in 1 C1-INH subject and

124 Delayed graft function developed in 79 recipients of kid

125 In addition to providing overall results for delayed graft function (DGF) (requirement for dialysis i

126 RL) may increase the incidence of or prolong delayed graft function (DGF) after cadaveric renal trans

127 me studies have found an association between delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

128 Delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

129 Current methods for rapid detection of delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantatio

130 Delayed graft function (DGF) after renal transplantation

131 erfusate, were significantly associated with delayed graft function (DGF) after the transplant.

132 idneys, which contribute to a higher risk of delayed graft function (DGF) after transplantation.

133 Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) ex

134 dered to contribute to the occurrence of the delayed graft function (DGF) and chronic graft failure.

135 response gene (MYD) 88, are associated with delayed graft function (DGF) and could be used as biomar

136 njury (IRI) to renal grafts, contributing to delayed graft function (DGF) and episodes of acute immun

137 determine the effect of recipient obesity on delayed graft function (DGF) and graft survival after re

138 nd cause of death influence the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) and graft survival; however

139 inators between the profiles of kidneys with delayed graft function (DGF) and immediate graft functio

140 ed in renal allograft recipients at risk for delayed graft function (DGF) and immunologic rejection.

141 rolonged ischemia is a known risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and its interaction with do

142 Delayed graft function (DGF) and slow graft function (SG

143 Delayed graft function (DGF) and slow graft function (SG

144 nction (IGF), slow graft function (SGF), and delayed graft function (DGF) and the drop in estimated g

145 elial damage in the renal graft and leads to delayed graft function (DGF) and to an early loss of per

146 IRI usually manifests as delayed graft function (DGF) and, in severe cases, resul

147 Delayed graft function (DGF) caused by ischemia/reperfus

148 ns experienced nearly twice the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) compared with heart-beating

149 In cadaveric renal transplantation, delayed graft function (DGF) correlates with poor long-t

150 Patient-level risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) have been well described.

151 ted nomogram designed to predict the risk of delayed graft function (DGF) in a given transplant.

152 is study examined the association of PP with delayed graft function (DGF) in all (n=94,709) deceased

153 ther there is an association between sex and delayed graft function (DGF) in patients who received de

154 We analyzed the risk of developing delayed graft function (DGF) in recipients of DCD and do

155 cteristics and (2) determine their impact on delayed graft function (DGF) in transplanted renal allog

156 Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication of

157 Delayed graft function (DGF) is an established complicat

158 Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with an incre

159 Delayed graft function (DGF) is frequently observed in r

160 Delayed graft function (DGF) is the need for dialysis in

161 Delayed graft function (DGF) occurs in 15 to 25% (range,

162 s of early, silent, acute rejection (AR) and delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney allograft surviva

163 ee regimens benefited patients regardless of delayed graft function (DGF) or early acute rejection st

164 Patients without delayed graft function (DGF) receiving MMF had significa

165 of the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) versus delayed graft function (DGF) to predict graft survival i

166 Delayed graft function (DGF) was defined as first week d

167 Delayed graft function (DGF) was strongly associated wit

168 , inflammation, and MHC II expression, while delayed graft function (DGF) was therefore reduced.

169 Delayed graft function (DGF) was twice as common in reci

170 ded criteria donors (ECD) and development of delayed graft function (DGF) were also evaluated.

171 Rates of delayed graft function (DGF) were significantly lower in

172 se objective criteria for early diagnosis of delayed graft function (DGF), 59 adult living donor kidn

173 ysis can aid in predicting the occurrence of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and

174 antation and evaluated one of these outcomes-delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, graft or

175 The rates of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, readmissi

176 ion of the following variables with outcome: delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, recipient

177 We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and pa

178 cardiac death (DCD) exhibit higher rates of delayed graft function (DGF), and DCD livers demonstrate

179 nset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT), delayed graft function (DGF), and graft failure.

180 of this policy on cold ischemia time (CIT), delayed graft function (DGF), and transplant survival wa

181 Delayed graft function (DGF), defined as dialysis in the

182 Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) leading to delayed graft function (DGF), defined by the United Netw

183 Delayed graft function (DGF), graft failure, and patient

184 ng cold ischemic time (CIT), with or without delayed graft function (DGF), has been associated with r

185 Topics included the development of IRI and delayed graft function (DGF), histology and biomarkers,

186 eceiving renal transplant centers focused on delayed graft function (DGF), patient and allograft surv

187 utcomes included graft loss, renal function, delayed graft function (DGF), patient death, and the inc

188 We classified graft recovery as delayed graft function (DGF), slow graft function (SGF),

189 expression changes in kidney allografts with delayed graft function (DGF), which often follows ischem

190 ion, antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), and delayed graft function (DGF).

191 ated with more primary nonfunction (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF).

192 The primary outcome was delayed graft function (DGF).

193 pient and donor BMI and its correlation with delayed graft function (DGF).

194 transplant, and were more likely to develop delayed graft function (DGF).

195 on was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function (DGF).

196 d that are associated with a reduced risk of delayed graft function (DGF).

197 ejection in renal transplant recipients with delayed graft function (DGF).

198 vent renal ischemia-reperfusion injuries and delayed graft function (DGF).

199 ing 2435 recipients, 756 of whom experienced delayed graft function (DGF).

200 ts with serum biomarker measurements, 26 had delayed graft function (DGF; hemodialysis within 1 week

201 nd to assess their performance in predicting delayed graft function (DGF=dialysis requirement during

202 days, early events (acute rejection [AR] and delayed graft function [DGF] before day 90) were recorde

203 eased donor kidney transplant [DDKT] without delayed graft function [DGF] hazard ratio: 24.634.447.9,

204 e higher rates of primary graft nonfunction, delayed graft function, discard, and retrieval associate

205 y ischemia detection in porcine kidneys with delayed graft function early after transplantation.

206 tive predictor of poor KT outcomes including delayed graft function, early hospital readmission, immu

207 in the DKT group, although the incidence of delayed graft function, early rejection treatment, and g

208 Recipient presensitization, delayed graft function, early rejection, and higher crea

209 ve, deceased donor, expanded donor criteria, delayed graft function, elevated panel reactive antibody

210 This kidney had delayed graft function for a period of 26 days, and the

211 nd point was a composite of acute rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death.

212 d total preservation times compared with the delayed graft function group.

213 Renal transplant recipients who experience delayed graft function have increased risks of rejection

214 tes, being on a ventilator, hospitalization, delayed graft function, hepatocellular carcinoma, and in

215 y obese patients may be at increased risk of delayed graft function, higher postoperative complicatio

216 GAL concentrations associated with recipient delayed graft function (highest versus lowest NGAL terti

217 Dopamine's success in reducing kidney delayed graft function highlights the opportunity for ad

218 ents is associated with an increased risk of delayed graft function; however, this does not compromis

219 age (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P=0.03), and delayed graft function (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P=0.06

220 cute rejection (HR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.23-1.76), delayed graft function (HR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71), and

221 human leukocyte antigen match, occurrence of delayed graft function, immunosuppressive regimen, weigh

222 These results may imply why delayed graft function in DCD kidneys does not have the

223 t of diabetes after transplantation, and for delayed graft function in kidney only.

224 perfusion injury (IRI) is the major cause of delayed graft function in renal allografts.

225 alondialdehyde (MDA) levels, correlates with delayed graft function in renal transplant recipients.

226 The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney recipients, which w

227 There was an increased incidence of delayed graft function in the NHBD renal transplants in

228 g deprivation of oxygen were associated with delayed graft function in the recipient.

229 Delayed graft function in transplant recipients increase

230 The odds of delayed graft function increased for kidneys with multip

231 Delayed graft function increased substantially, possibly

232 , cytomegalovirus D+/R-, cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, induction with antithymocyte glo

233 ury leading to acute renal failure (ARF) and delayed graft function is an important problem in organ

234 ors before organ recovery has on the rate of delayed graft function is unclear.

235 plantation was associated with an absence of delayed graft function, low acute rejection rates, and h

236 ysfunction, and in none of the patients with delayed graft function (n=6).

237 (O.R. 0.15, 95% C.I. 0.03-0.91, P=0.04) and delayed graft function (O.R. 4.49, 95% C.I. 1.67-36.56,

238 Delayed graft function occurred in 23% of No RIPC and 28

239 Delayed graft function occurred in 31% of renal grafts.

240 Delayed graft function occurred less frequently in the d

241 21 recovered and transplanted at our center, delayed graft function occurred with 16 kidneys; there w

242 /m were associated with an increased risk of delayed graft function (odds ratio [95% confidence inter

243 ion) and were an independent risk factor for delayed graft function (odds ratio, 2.152; 95% confidenc

244 y explain in part the increased incidence of delayed graft function of cadaver kidneys compared with

245 n in renal transplant recipients at risk for delayed graft function or acute rejection (n=278), TMG w

246 ntly higher than proportions attributable to delayed graft function or acute rejection.

247 AKI but provide limited value in predicting delayed graft function or early allograft function after

248 This did not translate into higher delayed graft function or graft loss rates between the 2

249 s at engraftment and 3 and 6 months, without delayed graft function or interval rejection, and we con

250 nth (OR 0.62 per 10 ml/min/1.73 m, P<0.001), delayed graft function (OR 11.5, P = 0.02), and a SRL-ba

251 ce interval [CI]: 1.09-90.58; p = 0.041) and delayed graft function (OR: 3.40; 95% CI: 1.08-10.73; p

252 ensitized, receive public insurance, develop delayed graft function, or undergo steroid withdrawal.

253 ents not receiving steroids experienced less delayed graft function (p = 0.01) and pretransplant dial

254 Delayed graft function (P<0.0001), rejection (P<0.0001),

255 recipient BMI greater than 30 (P=0.0012) and delayed graft function (P=0.0041).

256 ne (P=0.0001), 1-year creatinine (P=0.0015), delayed graft function (P=0.007), total human leukocyte

257 (40% vs. 11%; P=0.02), or had suffered from delayed graft function (P=0.03).

258 isk factor for early graft loss (P=0.04) and delayed graft function (P=0.04).

259 tly higher body mass index and older donors, delayed graft function, prevalence of metabolic syndrome

260 Relationship of AKI with delayed graft function/primary nonfunction (DGF/PNF), es

261 The delayed graft function rate (DGF), defined as the requir

262 Finally, delayed graft function rate was significantly higher in

263 fusion might help to decrease posttransplant delayed graft function rates and to increase the donor p

264 Delayed graft function rates were lowest in EBK (17.9%),

265 warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1

266 The recipients experienced delayed graft function requiring hemodialysis which was

267 for age, gender, deceased donor transplant, delayed graft function, tacrolimus and exposure to antib

268 sufficient peri-transplant ischemia to cause delayed graft function than from allografts with slow or

269 matched, though the 12-week cohort had more delayed graft function than their 24-week counterparts (

270 (CI) is a risk factor for the development of delayed graft function that predicts reduced 5-year kidn

271 Most patients with acute tubular necrosis-delayed graft function that resolved later than posttran

272 In 22 patients with delayed graft function, the proportion of patients with

273 Although there was a higher incidence of delayed graft function, there was no significant differe

274 The incidence of delayed graft function was 21%, the incidence of cytomeg

275 DCD, the primary nonfunction rate was 5% and delayed graft function was 25%.

276 The incidence of delayed graft function was 5% and 35% (P<0.01), whereas

277 The incidence of delayed graft function was 5%, and 2% of patients requir

278 Delayed graft function was also higher in uDCD than in c

279 The incidence of delayed graft function was higher in ECD (68.1% vs. 58.4

280 The incidence of delayed graft function was lower in the alemtuzumab grou

281 Delayed graft function was more common among recipients

282 Delayed graft function was more frequent in NP vs. P (10

283 Delayed graft function was more frequent in the SK group

284 Occurrence and length of delayed graft function was not significantly different b

285 ed after cardiac death of the donors, but no delayed graft function was observed.

286 Delayed graft function was significantly more common in

287 For death-censored kidney graft survival, delayed graft function was the strongest negative predic

288 ger pretransplantation dialysis vintage, and delayed graft function were associated with higher ED us

289 only recipients with both a positive RXM and delayed graft function were at significantly higher risk

290 Patients developing delayed graft function were excluded.

291 longer in DKT (22.2+/-9.7 hr), but rates of delayed graft function were lower (29.3%) compared to EC

292 and living donor kidney transplants without delayed graft function were randomized to receive predni

293 h after transplantation and the incidence of delayed graft function were similar in both groups.

294 Patients with delayed graft function were treated with either SRL/c-IL

295 Delayed graft function, which is reported in up to 50% o

296 s also associated with an increased risk for delayed graft function while lower BMI was significantly

297 patients at high risk for acute rejection or delayed graft function who received a renal transplant f

298 patients at high risk for acute rejection or delayed graft function who received a renal transplant f

299 survival, serum creatinine, and incidence of delayed graft function with 3 years of follow-up.

300 ltivariate model of CCL2, recipient age, and delayed graft function yielded an AUC 0.87 for predictio