ライフサイエンスコーパス: donation

1 t among ICU clinician's perceptions of organ donation.

2 that expand opportunities for kidney-paired donation.

3 r dealing with families who wish to overrule donation.

4 ose cause of death was consistent with organ donation.

5 nors regarding follow-up and self-care after donation.

6 re seronegative for viral markers at time of donation.

7 enerally survived less than a month prior to donation.

8 s or support measures that facilitated organ donation.

9 does not explain any increase in ESRD after donation.

10 nician's perceptions and experience of organ donation.

11 lfilling best practices for organ and tissue donation.

12 mong the individuals most likely to complete donation.

13 rants ongoing monitoring after living kidney donation.

14 sion and at 3, 6, and 12 months after uterus donation.

15 tation of Al atoms into Si atoms by electron donation.

16 clinical evidence of disease at the time of donation.

17 2 of the 16 occurred more than a year after donation.

18 PCR assay 2 to 7 months after the implicated donation.

19 market, and the economic barriers to living donation.

20 hould be implemented to expand living kidney donation.

21 on to enable prompt orientation toward organ donation.

22 or donor's family, and formal recognition of donation.

23 year cohort may have been eligible for organ donation.

24 ty of life was not significantly affected by donation.

25 o being a donor, aim to increase the rate of donation.

26 ctions and identify modifiable deterrents to donation.

27 igh as the projected risks in the absence of donation.

28 nea donors have respiratory disease prior to donation.

29 nors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of donation.

30 ng their perceptions and experience of organ donation.

31 >70 years of age, creating disincentives to donation.

32 luation and who underwent a kidney biopsy at donation.

33 enhanced focus and expertise in organ/tissue donation.

34 ly adverse effects on the incidence of organ donations.

35 vents has contributed to the safety of these donations.

36 TT) dengue virus (DENV) by DENV RNA-positive donations.

37 ulting in a 74% increase in refugee-directed donations.

38 , such as mugs or tote bags, in exchange for donations.

39 requesting and encouraging family consent to donation, (2) the effect of the donation decision on fam

40 end-stage renal disease 5 to 17 years after donation, (2.7/10 000 person years).

41 large rise in donors who did not proceed to donation (325 to 2464).

42 The concept of "imminent death" donation, a type of living donation, has been gaining at

43 chieving Comprehensive Coordination in Organ Donation (ACCORD)-Spain consisted of an audit of the don

44 iggered 25 transplants through kidney paired donation across the United States.

45 an increasing proportion of "potential organ donation" admissions.

46 loped BD, of whom 117 transitioned to actual donation after BD.

47 Kidneys from Donation after Brain Death (DBD) and Donation after Circ

48 n donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts with the novel C

49 3 and 2011-2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney-only transplants

50 ents (n = 59) were compared with a cohort of donation after brain death (DBD) LTx recipients (n = 331

51 There were 12 864 intended donation after brain death (DBD) or DCD donors from Apri

52 m from 2000 to 2014 were separated into DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor (LD)

53 tween November 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015, (donation after brain death [DBD] donors) and March 1, 20

54 The number of donation after brain death donors could increase with ch

55 gram has had minimal impact on the number of donation after brain death donors.

56 U clinicians are primarily involved in organ donation after brain death of ICU patients.

57 Increasingly, donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are used in vi

58 n (DGF) is an established complication after donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidney transplants, b

59 Donation after cardiac death (DCD) to overcome the donor

60 patitis C virus positive donors, livers from donation after cardiac death donors, livers with >30% st

61 d from the donors' preserved fluid from DCD (donation after cardiac death) renal transplantation and

62 biopsy, cytomegalovirus seropositive status, donation after cardiac death, hepatitis B and C seroposi

63 iod after liver transplantation (LT) between donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation afte

64 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an imp

65 While donation after circulatory death (DCD) has expanded opti

66 gan shortage persists despite a high rate of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Netherland

67 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is current clinic

68 Organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasingly b

69 In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant

70 Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant

71 ared outcomes for recipients of single-organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidneys preserved

72 he impact of the United Kingdom's controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) program and the c

73 ys from Donation after Brain Death (DBD) and Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) were included.

74 f warm ischemia (WI) lesions that occur with donation after circulatory death (DCD) would significant

75 liver grafts were procured, four (40%) from donation after circulatory death (DCD), of which nine we

76 Twelve livers (9 donation after circulatory death [DCD] and 3 from brain-

77 nors) and March 1, 2013, and April 30, 2015 (donation after circulatory death [DCD] donors).

78 Thirty-six donation after circulatory death donors (28% of actual d

79 A further 15 donation after circulatory death donors had brain death

80 .01-1.18; P = 0.02) in recipients with older donation after circulatory death grafts.

81 t on graft survival in recipients with older donation after circulatory death kidneys.

82 In addition, 4 discarded human donation after circulatory death livers were subjected t

83 by identifying gaps in the well-established donation after circulatory death process in Ontario.

84 The development of a national donation after circulatory death program has had minimal

85 s in neurological determination of death and donation after circulatory death, end-of-life care, perf

86 argely attributable to a notable increase in donation after circulatory death.

87 A total of 257 patients were assessed for donation after circulatory death.

88 54.0% (n = 760) were medically suitable for donation after circulatory death.

89 did not develop BD, 2 transitioned to actual donation after circulatory death.

90 Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD)

91 liver transplant recipients receive a graft donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD)

92 n transplant recipients themselves, or Organ Donation After Transplant (ODAT) donors.

93 There were 19 donors (6 donations after brain death, 13 donations after circulat

94 Machine perfusates of 390 donations after circulatory death kidneys were analyzed

95 19 donors (6 donations after brain death, 13 donations after circulatory death), with a median (range

96 s blood services in the maximum frequency of donations allowed.

97 The 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3

98 rs predicted later trial-by-trial charitable donation amounts (p < 0.05).

99 olarship, learning, research, and charitable donation; an expanding economy, with recent but increasi

100 ght to be less likely causally linked to the donation and 10 more likely with 1 requiring more inform

101 rk on converting eligible referrals to organ donation and exploring methods of converting DCD to DBD

102 Their role in organ donation and graft function and survival is still unknow

103 ecialists with expertise in organ and tissue donation and have been recognized internationally as a k

104 rce was set up to identify barriers to organ donation and in 2008 released its first report (Organ Do

105 This method allows separation of the sigma-donation and pi-acceptor interactions of the ligand thro

106 but the impact of this information on organ donation and transplant outcome is not well documented.

107 Rates of organ donation and transplantation have steadily increased in

108 he need for legal clarity and flexibility as donation and transplantation systems continue to evolve.

109 KPD has been successful in increasing kidney donation and transplantation, there are lingering questi

110 with the expectation of-a reciprocal kidney donation and transplantation.

111 lenging, interventions to better standardize donation and utilization rates would be impactful in red

112 We found that standardizing regional donation and utilization rates would reduce geographic h

113 aring database and calculated regional liver donation and utilization stratified by age, race, and bo

114 tablish the impact of such behavior on organ donation and utilization, as well transplant recipient o

115 The study was based on the Scandinavian Donations and Transfusions database, including all patie

116 nsmitted through various routes (e.g., blood donation) and cause hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and liver

117 se in uric acid levels beginning early after donation, and a small (1.4%) increase in the 8-year inci

118 isk (without donating), risk attributable to donation, and absolute risk (after donating) need to be

119 mmunication about transplantation and living donation, and offer recommendations for transplant clini

120 care of a dying patient" or "potential organ donation," and compare with actively managed ICU patient

121 % CI: 1.08-2.75], having awareness about eye donation [AOR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01-1.92], educational le

122 Wide variations in access to living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers.

123 o describe shift from curative care to organ donation as emotionally complex (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% C

124 Professionals who experienced organ donation as motivating were younger (odds ratio, 0.41; 9

125 donations (i.e., 0 cases per 75,331 screened donations), as compared with 14 cases per 253,031 unscre

126 successful donations converted to successful donations, as many as 837 abdominal transplants could ha

127 Our results suggest that allowing donation at imminent death and including discussions abo

128 orted significant harm, many appreciated the donation attempt.

129 Here we report a new strategy for H2S donation based on self-immolation of benzyl thiocarbamat

130 gen, while 3-OH group improved hydrogen atom donation because of the stabilization by anthocyanidin s

131 kin could not be approached regarding organ donation because referral occurred after initiation of w

132 movie was shown, depicting refusal of organ donation between two sisters, with subjects guided to be

133 as hepatitis C virus seronegative at time of donation, but was found to be viremic on retrospective t

134 cids known to be involved in sulfur and iron donation by Nfs1 and Yfh1, respectively, are in close pr

135 resembling the clinical situation of kidney donation by obese individuals.

136 eads to the conclusion that increasing sigma-donation by X also disfavors oxidative addition of N-H b

137 We examine how presentations of organ donation cases in the media may affect people's willingn

138 on of the recipient in the coverage of organ donation cases-with possibly adverse effects on the inci

139 donation physician personal characteristics, donation clinical processes, health resource allocation,

140 tive group, though only the "potential organ donation" cohort showed an increase in proportion of tot

141 ay affect people's willingness to sign organ donation commitment cards, donate the organs of a deceas

142 Were unsuccessful donations converted to successful donations, as many as

143 partner influenced their subsequent level of donation days after the initial exchange.

144 y consent to donation, (2) the effect of the donation decision on family well-being, (3) the process

145 A new electronic parameter for ligand donation, derived from experiments on a high-valent chro

146 We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived ph

147 vices definitions of an "eligible death" for donation excludes patients >70 years of age, creating di

148 Limits on the frequency of whole blood donation exist primarily to safeguard donor health.

149 of an evidence-informed consensus process of donation experts and bioethicists to produce an ethics g

150 e transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.

151 Finally, while it is appropriate to make donation "financially neutral"-by reimbursing the added

152 were randomly assigned to receive a platelet donation from a high- or low-responder donor when both w

153 Consideration of charge donation from chemical species in the surface environmen

154 eded to inform future policy regarding organ donation from HIV-infected persons in Canada.

155 ed by VB-PES spectra, indicating an electron donation from nitrogen, molecular bonding C/N/O coordina

156 l moiety, consistent with increased electron donation from the axial selenolate ligand.

157 Strong electron-donation from the axial thiolate ligand of cytochrome P4

158 the CoO, which directly results in electron donation from the CoO to the Pt, and thus favorable tuni

159 face potential is modulated by direct charge donation from the ligand to the metal, resulting from th

160 These 3 voucher donations functioned in a nondirected fashion and trigge

161 Nitric oxide donation has emerged as a POAG therapeutic target.

162 direct link between reactivity and electron donation has yet to be established.

163 "imminent death" donation, a type of living donation, has been gaining attention among physicians, p

164 Although early surgical risks of donation have been reported, long-term medical outcomes

165 Patients who died in designated donation hospitals within the province of Ontario, Canad

166 ted babesiosis were associated with screened donations (i.e., 0 cases per 75,331 screened donations),

167 ompared with 14 cases per 253,031 unscreened donations (i.e., 1 case per 18,074 unscreened donations)

168 Intensive Care to facilitate Organ Donation (ICOD) may help to increase the donor pool.

169 out evidence of hemolysis were evaluated for donation, if there was no other suitable donor.

170 ve breast cancer cases diagnosed after blood donation in 1989-1990, 417 of whom donated a second samp

171 death and including discussions about organ donation in end-of-life planning could substantially red

172 the need to promptly focus efforts on organ donation in patients who are pronounced dead.

173 entified higher risk of ESRD attributable to donation in two studies; importantly, however, the absol

174 Specific concerns raised by advanced donation include the management of uncertainty, the exte

175 trate increased risk of kidney disease after donation, including a small increase in the risk of kidn

176 are of a dying patient" and "potential organ donation" increased from 179 in 2007 to 551 in 2016 and

177 ctive recipient (whose life was saved by the donation) increased the participants' willingness to com

178 rom PCR-positive or high-titer AFIA-positive donations infected hamsters.

179 y transmitted diseases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across decisions ranging fro

180 discuss the arguments in favor of permitting donation intentions to be overruled, and then the argume

181 andard practice in the UK with shorter inter-donation intervals used in other countries.

182 standard) versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, and women were randomly assigned (1:

183 ent of strategies to increase deceased organ donation is dependent on timely, accurate information re

184 to increase the donor pool and ensures organ donation is posed at every end-of-life care pathway.

185 o maximize pi donation to rhenium; strong pi donation is substantiated by the intraligand bond distan

186 degree of mismatch between expectations and donations is added into the model.

187 on of compatible pairs (CP) in kidney paired donation (KPD) could be attractive to CPs who have a hig

188 Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living

189 The introduction of kidney paired donation (KPD) programs represents one such innovation t

190 Kidney paired donation (KPD) strategies have facilitated compatible li

191 Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donation [KPD]) registries in the United States have gra

192 y death (DCD) has expanded options for organ donation, many who wish to donate are still unable to do

193 Their perceptions of organ donation may affect outcomes.

194 he experiences of individuals who opt out of donation may reveal avenues for enhancing donor protecti

195 Physicians who are focused on deceased donation medicine as part of their practice can expect t

196 Deceased donation medicine involves unique ethical challenges.

197 e might promote ethical practice in deceased donation medicine.

198 ge of deceased-donor organs is compounded by donation metrics that fail to account for the total pool

199 bout donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financ

200 ad a decreasing order of H-atom and electron donation (Mv>Pn>Pg>Ap>4'-OH-flavylium) consistent with t

201 on, vouchers remove a disincentive to kidney donation, namely, a reluctance to donate now lest one's

202 wledge of medical outcomes after live kidney donation necessary to support donor candidates in well i

203 The impact of pre-donation obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney

204 ectations are accurate, matching closely the donations observed and showing that as a society we have

205 onations (i.e., 1 case per 18,074 unscreened donations) (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.

206 The donation of a kidney at a time that is optimal for the d

207 st gene regulation, particularly through the donation of alternative promoters, enhancers, splice sit

208 c ethical analysis of the family overrule of donation of solid organs by deceased patients, and exami

209 Families are often asked to consent to the donation of their deceased relative's organs or tissues.

210 ss penile transplantation and must cover the donation of tissue, consent, subject selection, qualific

211 development organisation (NGDO) support, and donations of drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

212 risdiction with a "presumed consent" system, donation often does not go ahead because of another issu

213 ous substitution groups showed that electron donation on the three-membered ring boosted the TOF of r

214 determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were

215 e families were interviewed to discuss organ donation once intensive care with a therapeutic purpose

216 when, and how to ask families for consent to donation or (b) characteristics of families or decedents

217 a mechanism involving ground-state electron donation or withdrawal to/from the MoS2 nanosheets, whic

218 The primary outcome was the number of donations over 2 years.

219 pressure, preoperative eGFR, and time since donation (P < 0.01).

220 (ACCORD)-Spain consisted of an audit of the donation pathway from patients who died as a result of a

221 a dying patient" and 1,115 "potential organ donation" patients from 2007 to 2016.

222 roposed metrics of OPO performance were: (1) donation percentage (percentage of possible deceased-don

223 ity of life, symptoms potentially related to donation, physical activity, cognitive function, haemogl

224 n with families, interprofessional conflict, donation physician personal characteristics, donation cl

225 Although this report is intended to inform donation physician practices, it is recognized that the

226 ty-Canadian Blood Services consultation, the donation physician role has been gradually implemented i

227 of these challenges and to describe how the donation physician role might promote ethical practice i

228 Donation physicians are specialists with expertise in or

229 agement of ethical challenges encountered by donation physicians.

230 plant community's efforts to increase living donation, preserving donor autonomy is essential.

231 DFT calculations showed that the donation process in non-catecholic anthocyanidins depend

232 The two-hydrogen atom donation process is frequently used to explain the high

233 ansplantation is an essential element of the donation process.

234 nty regarding the timing of death during the donation process.

235 us groups with professionals involved in the donation process.

236 ath by neurologic criteria (outside of organ donation; range, 1-17 times).

237 ine experiment, thank-you gifts also reduced donation rates but only when the gift was visually salie

238 y was to determine the potential to increase donation rates further by identifying gaps in the well-e

239 nd demonstrates that thank-you gifts reduced donation rates in a fundraising campaign.

240 As organ donation rates remain unable to meet the needs of indivi

241 sons of OPO performance and geographic-level donation rates, and identify areas in greatest need of i

242 in greatest need of interventions to improve donation rates.

243 omparison with other continents with similar donation rates.

244 extant ethical issues in deceased and living donation related to privacy, confidentiality, profession

245 cioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might a

246 The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to

247 Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to ha

248 otential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation-related financial burden.

249 Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/

250 en percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns,

251 ver, more frequent donation resulted in more donation-related symptoms (eg, tiredness, breathlessness

252 or cognitive function, but resulted in more donation-related symptoms, deferrals, and iron deficienc

253 scussions about goals of treatment and organ donation represented the most common reason for ICU admi

254 However, more frequent donation resulted in more donation-related symptoms (eg,

255 Of 89,153 blood-donation samples tested, 335 (0.38%) were confirmed to b

256 utilization rate of PHS-IR organs varied by Donation Service Area; utilization ranged from 20% to 10

257 ey contributor to improving organ and tissue donation services.

258 ilies while providing and/or improving organ donation services.

259 nation eGFR after adjusting for donor age at donation, sex, race, preoperative systolic blood pressur

260 for family consent is to secure consent and donation, some ethical commentary on requesting consent

261 onscientious objection, death determination, donation specific clinical practices in neurological det

262 Following semen donation, specimens are either used immediately or froze

263 that could inform development of alternative donation strategies.

264 Two such innovations are the advanced donation strategy in which a donor provides a kidney bef

265 g pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting clinical consequences from reduced

266 o permit overrules could weaken trust in the donation system.

267 Organ donation systems around the world are almost universally

268 nnovation that has become a valuable tool in donation systems around the world.

269 and in 2008 released its first report (Organ Donation Taskforce Report; ODTR).

270 In the United Kingdom, the Organ Donation Taskforce was set up to identify barriers to or

271 iabetes is more common after living pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting c

272 INTERPRETATION: Over 2 years, more frequent donation than is standard practice in the UK collected s

273 dressing family concerns, and an attitude to donation that is positive (but not solely procurement-fo

274 as living donors, the health risks of living donation, the ethics and legality of an organ market, an

275 In the first decade after donation, the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovasc

276 participants' willingness to commit to organ donation themselves, donate the organs of a deceased rel

277 nthocyanidins with 3',5'-diOMe groups showed donation through 3,4'-OH or, otherwise, through 3,5-OH g

278 Donation through KPD is done in exchange for-and with th

279 iated and preserved by disrupting the dative donation through protonation on the thiolate or reductio

280 oxyanthocyanidins, on the other hand, showed donation through the 3,4'-OH path rather than the catech

281 nsplantation was initiated in 2013 with live donation to 9 women with absolute uterine factor inferti

282 e findings highlight the importance of organ donation to donor families and the difficult experiences

283 to reduced site IIf, thereby making electron donation to O2 possible, explaining the rapid increase i

284 for future kidney transplants enables living donation to occur when optimal for the donor and transpl

285 nother issue: their families refuse to allow donation to proceed.

286 sual fac geometry, presumably to maximize pi donation to rhenium; strong pi donation is substantiated

287 staff stress; families need to cooperate for donation to take place; families might have evidence reg

288 ensity of 183 Caucasian participants to make donations to people in need, half of whom were refugees

289 ory analysis where we used national rates of donation, utilization and both for each regional model.

290 complexity of personal feelings about organ donation versus professional activity (odds ratio, 3.25;

291 s of advancing age with a limited window for donation, vouchers remove a disincentive to kidney donat

292 This potential benefit of DCD pancreas donation warrants further study.

293 Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 +/- 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% we

294 l activity, less likely to report that organ donation was not a priority in their ICU (odds ratio, 0.

295 Professionals who felt organ donation was stressful were older (odds ratio, 1.84; 95%

296 road and easily modifiable platforms for H2S donation, we report here the preparation and H2S release

297 hemia time, donor age, and expanded criteria donation were performed.

298 evere reduction in GFR and ESRD after kidney donation were uncommon and were highly associated with p

299 specific contributions of both processes for donations were reflected in participants' empathy and pe

300 rom 2 KPD registries-the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multihospital exchanges, and Method

301 willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are