ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft failure

1 ilure (three of three patients had secondary graft failure).

2 ath, and 0.62 (0.49-0.78) for death-censored graft failure.

3 stic tool for monitoring cancer dynamics and graft failure.

4 ut not with risk of cardiovascular events or graft failure.

5 the transplant waiting list following first graft failure.

6 ed in recrudescence of anti-pig antibody and graft failure.

7 Furthermore, 45 (6%) patients developed graft failure.

8 s becomes increasingly difficult, leading to graft failure.

9 ecember 2013, and did not experience primary graft failure.

10 of subsequent graft dysfunction or end-stage graft failure.

11 ated glomerular filtration rate or end-stage graft failure.

12 nimize the risk of thrombosis and subsequent graft failure.

13 remains the leading cause of nonimmunologic graft failure.

14 or international normalized ratio >1.6), and graft failure.

15 identified stenosis as the primary cause of graft failure.

16 retransplantation (re-OLT) procedure due to graft failure.

17 SA are characteristics predictive of AMR and graft failure.

18 rward in investigating mechanisms of chronic graft failure.

19 nfidence and reducing the risk of iatrogenic graft failure.

20 [P < .001]) were associated with subsequent graft failure.

21 were based on small numbers of patients with graft failure.

22 Forty-two patients (3.7%) had 2-week graft failure.

23 ponse to antirejection therapy and long-term graft failure.

24 tlist times were independently predictive of graft failure.

25 ation of DSA features to acute rejection and graft failure.

26 orming a secondary DMEK in an early phase of graft failure.

27 se-dependently associated with mortality and graft failure.

28 host eye play a role in graft adherence and graft failure.

29 There was no secondary graft failure.

30 disease score was associated with increased graft failure.

31 and factors contributing to subsequent renal graft failure.

32 persistence or loss of pre-existing DSA with graft failure.

33 s strongly associated with increased risk of graft failure.

34 n pretransplant skin cancer, PTM, death, and graft failure.

35 , 149 (21%) RTRs died and 82 (12%) developed graft failure.

36 n (NODAT), delayed graft function (DGF), and graft failure.

37 atients were at greater risk of rejection or graft failure.

38 Two children experienced primary graft failure.

39 imal hyperplasia, which is the main cause of graft failure.

40 4; P = 0.024) were risk factors for pancreas graft failure.

41 ion between recipient sex and death-censored graft failure.

42 mune responses remain a significant cause of graft failure.

43 tcomes including a 100% risk of dying before graft failure.

44 al function over 24 months of follow-up, and graft failure.

45 or early adulthood have the highest risk of graft failure.

46 cancer, PTLD, solid organ cancer, death and graft failure.

47 re successfully transplanted with no primary graft failures.

48 3 for mortality; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66 for graft failure; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66 for combined outc

49 one third graft detachment (11.6%), primary graft failure (1.6%), or secondary graft failure (2.0%),

50 trinsic acute allograft failure, 27 prerenal graft failures, 118 patients with stable graft function,

51 , primary graft failure (1.6%), or secondary graft failure (2.0%), with the majority (79%) of repeat

52 ere allograft rejection (2.4%) and secondary graft failure (2.0%).

53 ervation Time Study that had not experienced graft failure 3 years after DSAEK were included.

54 ervation Time Study that had not experienced graft failure 3 years after DSAEK, performed primarily f

55 nin amounts in the highest 50% had a risk of graft failure 3.59 times as high (95% confidence interva

56 ing DCD livers (n=75) showed greater overall graft failure (37.3% vs. 20.4%, P = 0.001), graft failur

57 % versus 2%; cardiac arrest, 2% versus 0.9%, graft failure, 5% versus 2%; and death, 4% versus 1% tha

58 controls (54.8 ng/mL, P = 0.70) and prerenal graft failure (53.8 ng/mL, P = 0.62).

59 ing and a significantly lower median time to graft failure (94.6 months [range, 3.6-158.9 months] vs

60 Although there was no difference in risk of graft failure across all age groups, both younger and ol

61 ficant association between CIT and all-cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI

62 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = 0.011), overall graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI,

63 .02] ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) and lower risk of graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.27

64 [CI], 1.36-2.32), and 3 month death-censored graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.18-

65 died 6 months after the operation because of graft failure after cardiac infarction.

66 Thus, graft failure after DMEK not only is determined by surgi

67 e results after DMEK as a procedure to treat graft failure after DSAEK were as good as in patients th

68 EK procedures underwent a secondary DMEK for graft failure after DSEK from March 1, 2012, through Feb

69 Patients with graft failure after DSEK had a mean (SD) age of 79.4 (7.

70 onsidered a feasible choice in patients with graft failure after DSEK.

71 increasing pretransplant BMI on the risk of graft failure after kidney transplantation in both unadj

72 e fibrosis is the primary cause of long-term graft failure after organ transplantation.

73 anagement of persistent graft detachment and graft failure after primary DMEK, re-DMEK proved a feasi

74 Only 1 graft failure, after PK, occurred among the 56 patients

75 5% CI], 1.06 to 1.45), a 40% greater risk of graft failure (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.68), and a 4

76 , 95% CI: 0.98-1.04, P = .4), death-censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98-1.06, P = .4),

77 ive was to investigate whether the hazard of graft failure also increases during this age period in F

78 eased instantaneous late hazard for death or graft failure among patients with IPF was noted at 1 yea

79 end existed toward increased biliary-induced graft failure among PSC patients (47.4 vs. 26.4%, P = 0.

80 Despite increased risk of graft failure amongst certain ODAT grafts, 5-year surviv

81 rs for all-cause mortality, 78 RTR developed graft failure and 158 RTR died.

82 During 4.4 (2.3-7.8) years of follow-up for graft failure and 4.8 (2.5-8.3) years for all-cause mort

83 or 3.1 y (IQR: 2.7-3.9 y), 45 RTRs developed graft failure and 83 died.

84 Primary outcome measures were death-censored graft failure and all-cause mortality.

85 isting, time from listing to KT, and post-KT graft failure and death between donors and matched nondo

86 ciated with exponentially increased risks of graft failure and death.

87 on-PSC patients showed similar prevalence of graft failure and graft survival time, though a trend ex

88 eptable social function, strategies to lower graft failure and hepatic and pulmonary toxicity are urg

89 s obliterans is the leading cause of chronic graft failure and long-term mortality in lung transplant

90 the first year was associated with long-term graft failure and mortality and could be considered as a

91 excretion, a marker for protein intake, with graft failure and mortality in renal transplant recipien

92 low UKV is associated with a higher risk of graft failure and mortality in RTRs.

93 tassium intake, represents a risk factor for graft failure and mortality in RTRs.

94 Second, we compared the associations with graft failure and mortality.

95 arization was an indicator of a high risk of graft failure and poor visual outcome.

96 ch indication to determine factors affecting graft failure and rejection at 5 years.

97 use mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and graft failure and, of all tested parameters, displayed t

98 We noted 325 graft failures and 215 deaths.

99 cluding two after a second transplant due to graft failure), and to mitochondrial neurogastrointestin

100 Twenty-three patients experienced graft failure, and 70 patients (7%) died, with the most

101 risk marker for complications including DGF, graft failure, and death.

102 at increased risk for cardiovascular events, graft failure, and death.

103 creased risk of perioperative complications, graft failure, and death.

104 e of biliary strictures as a risk factor for graft failure, and does not validate other risk factors

105 n together, the marked expansion, absence of graft failure, and enhanced hematopoietic recovery suppo

106 modifiable factors, to decrease the risk of graft failure, and improve longer-term outcomes.COMMIT w

107 atological malignancies, serious infections, graft failure, and mortality between KT patients with MG

108 Delayed graft function (DGF), graft failure, and patient death were ascertained from t

109 Correlation between chimerism and rejection, graft failure, and patient survival requires further stu

110 Graft and patient survivals, reason for graft failure, and rejection episodes were evaluated in

111 ed by low CD34+ cell dose, increased risk of graft failure, and slow hematopoietic recovery.

112 rst-time adult recipients were analyzed with graft failure as the principle outcome.

113 seemed to be associated with lower rates of graft failure at 1 year compared with ODN (P = 0.002).

114 Graft failure at 1 year is greater for donors with AKI t

115 vels, narcotic use for any reason, and islet graft failure at 1 year.

116 In the overall population, probability of graft failure at 20 years was 19.0 +/- 0.2% for the left

117 ociated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.232-1.97

118 ociated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months.

119 e sought to estimate the relative hazards of graft failure at different current ages, compared with t

120 ation of donor diabetes history with 10-year graft failure, baseline ECD, 10-year ECD, or ECD values

121 Graft failure because of immune rejection remains a sign

122 Three hundred seventy-seven deaths and 329 graft failures before death (638 total graft losses) occ

123 year estimated glomerular filtration rate or graft failure between groups 1 and 2 (41.5 +/- 18 vs 41.

124 The reasons for graft failure beyond the first year of transplantation h

125 14 (3%) died, and 23 (4%) had death-censored graft failure by 12 months.

126 Graft failure by 6 months was more than 3 times higher f

127 Currently, hMSC graft failure can be only diagnosed by lack of cartilage

128 er than 80% had a greater risk of rejection, graft failure, cancer and death independent of age and t

129 s of graft duration and risk of dying before graft failure, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes,

130 dity covariate that significantly influenced graft failure censored for death was peripheral vascular

131 The 15-year risk of death-adjusted graft failure compared to ADPKD ranged from 1.17 (95% co

132 AT donors had a significantly higher risk of graft failure compared to non-ODAT liver transplants (P

133 n adult patients may be associated with less graft failure compared with single UCBT, hematopoietic r

134 Reasons for intrinsic graft failure comprised rejection, acute tubular necrosi

135 ted for missing data, selective dropout from graft failure, correlations between fellow eyes, and cor

136 Cumulative incidences of graft failure, cytomegalovirus, and/or adenoviral infect

137 e events on risk of long-term death-censored graft failure (DCGF).

138 Graft failure, defined as a regrafting procedure or a cl

139 Selective dropout from graft failure did not affect the cell loss model signifi

140 No graft failure due to intrahepatic cholangiopathy or nonf

141 Re-transplantation for graft failure due to recurrent hepatitis C is controvers

142 Hazard ratios comparing the risk of graft failure during adolescence or early adulthood to o

143 m the Cox model indicated that the hazard of graft failure during the age period 13 to 23 years was a

144 Patients had 291 cardiovascular events, 257 graft failure events, and 359 deaths.

145 Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrol

146 graft failure (37.3% vs. 20.4%, P = 0.001), graft failure from biliary complications (47.4% vs. 13.9

147 dent and incremental risk factors for kidney graft failure (GF) beyond those MMs assessed at the anti

148 ome was safety, which consisted of secondary graft failure, grade III-IV acute GVHD, non-relapse mort

149 tween immunohaematological complications and graft failure, graft rejection, or death.

150 Complications include graft failure, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), infecti

151 , whereas 16 patients stopped earlier due to graft failure (group B) and in 6 for other reasons.

152 respectively), whereas recipients developing graft failure had lower efflux capacity than those with

153 or-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) with kidney graft failure has been addressed previously; however, th

154 intervene to preserve graft function before graft failure has occurred.

155 y had a modestly increased risk of all-cause graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence in

156 % CI], 1.30-2.35; P < 0.001), death censored graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.06; 95% CI, 1.46-2.9

157 BK was a significant factor associated with graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence i

158 e interval [95% CI], 1.199-3.863) and 1 year graft failure (hazard ratio, 1.386; 95% CI, 1.037-1.853)

159 e interval, 1.87 to 2.60) and death-censored graft failure (hazard ratio, 5.14; 95% confidence interv

160 Those with impaired graft function had more graft failures; however, this result was not statistical

161 hereas DCD transplantation increased risk of graft failure (HR = 1.28, P < 0.001).

162 capacity at baseline significantly predicted graft failure (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64; P<0.001)

163 High center volume was protective for graft failure (HR, 0.70; P = 0.037) compared with low ce

164 9), death (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), and graft failure (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30) when compare

165 ce interval [CI], 1.14-2.45; P = 0.0085) and graft failure (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.35-2.1; P <0.0001) on

166 0.001) and a similar risk of death-censored graft failure (HR,1.0, 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; P = 0.19), but a

167 men, <65 mmol/24 h) had an increased risk of graft failure (HR: 3.70; 95% CI: 1.64, 8.34) and risk of

168 vascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and graft failure in a cohort of renal transplant recipients

169 ne of the main causes of short and long-term graft failure in corneal transplantation.

170 h a significant risk of short- and long-term graft failure in deceased donor kidney transplants acros

171 ess the effect of interventions on death and graft failure in kidney transplant recipients are not fe

172 eperfusion (I/R) injury is the main cause of graft failure in liver transplantation (LT).

173 d with advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) and chronic graft failure in LT recipients.

174 We found trends toward increased graft failure in recipients who were 70 years or older c

175 re used to calculate risk for PTM, death and graft failure in recipients with pretransplant skin canc

176 opulation, but was inversely associated with graft failure in RTR with BMI less than 25 kg/m (hazard

177 for protein intake, was inversely related to graft failure in RTR with BMI less than 25 kg/m and in R

178 Mean CCT in the eyes with graft failure in the abnormal DM group at the last follo

179 t there has been residual concern about late graft failure in the absence of maintenance prednisone.

180 nd eye was associated with a reduced risk of graft failure in the first eye, independent of inter-tra

181 inary urea excretion was not associated with graft failure in the overall population, but was inverse

182 lower likelihood of retransplantation after graft failure in those aged 18 to 24 years.

183 The elevated risk of graft failure in those with the identified features of D

184 The risk of graft failure in young kidney transplant recipients has

185 with no adverse effect on HCT (no secondary graft failures in either group) or cases of acute GVHD (

186 Independent predictive factors for graft failure included donor-positive cytomegalovirus se

187 The leading cause of synthetic graft failure includes thrombotic occlusion and intimal

188 cause mortality but is a strong predictor of graft failure independent of plasma HDL cholesterol leve

189 Previous donor graft failure is a common indication for both PK and KPr

190 Graft failure is currently a major concern for medical p

191 The management of graft failure is increasingly relevant with the spread a

192 Since graft failure leads to macrophage phagocytosis of apopto

193 SCT outcomes including primary and secondary graft failure, lethal GvHD, and stable, disease-free ful

194 nge, 0%-22%) after DMEK, followed by primary graft failure (mean, 1.7%; range, 0%-12.5%), secondary g

195 ure (mean, 1.7%; range, 0%-12.5%), secondary graft failure (mean, 2.2%; range, 0%-6.3%), and immune r

196 tion (mean, 10%; range, 0%-45%), and primary graft failure (mean, 5%; range, 0%-29%).

197 ANZDATA), we assessed the risk of rejection, graft failure, mortality and cancer in kidney transplant

198 Complications after re-DMEK included primary graft failure (n = 1), secondary graft failure (n = 2),

199 ded primary graft failure (n = 1), secondary graft failure (n = 2), graft detachment requiring rebubb

200 full-thickness graft failure (n = 8), DSAEK graft failure (n = 3), and pseudophakic bullous keratopa

201 Indications for DSAEK were full-thickness graft failure (n = 8), DSAEK graft failure (n = 3), and

202 ing to prevent graft-versus-host disease and graft failure, negatively influences T-cell IR.

203 risk, defined as retransplant or death after graft failure; observation was censored at death with gr

204 Secondary graft failure occurred in 12% of patients.

205 Pancreas graft failure occurred in 14 PAK and two PRT patients wi

206 Graft failure occurred in 16 of 31 eyes and resulted fro

207 Primary graft failure occurred in 6 eyes (5.88%).

208 Primary graft failure occurred in the first case.

209 nfidence interval, 1.45-1.99; P < 0.001) and graft failure (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval

210 lted in posterior means for fatality without graft failure of 0.7% (credible interval 0-3.3) and 1.4%

211 onors, yet 10% to 15% of patients experience graft failure or delayed engraftment.

212 (n = 103), cerebrovascular events (n = 53), graft failure or doubling of serum creatinine (n = 140),

213 for the composite endpoint of death-censored graft failure or doubling of serum creatinine.

214 Specific HLA types were not associated with graft failure or mortality after PTLD diagnosis.

215 The ability to predict graft failure or primary nonfunction at liver transplant

216 >female [F]) corneas were at greater risk of graft failure or rejection.

217 Compared with the low AUC group, graft failure or relapse occurred less frequently in the

218 Other outcomes of interest were graft failure or relapse, or both; transplantation-relat

219 onged total graft ischemia times and primary graft failure or survival following lung transplantation

220 rejection (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; P = 0.63), graft failure (OR, 0.45; P = 0.08), or death (OR, 0.34;

221 the probability of corneal transplantation, graft failure, or both were calculated based on data fro

222 d in our hospital with no 6-month rejection, graft failure, or death in the recipients.

223 ants with adjudicated cardiovascular events, graft failure, or death.

224 -sided S-stamp eliminates iatrogenic primary graft failure owing to upside-down implantation of DMEK

225 esent in 35 patients (12.4%), was related to graft failure (P < 0.0001) and mortality (P = 0.030), ev

226 were associated with significantly increased graft failure (P = .012).

227 ection was associated with decreased risk of graft failure (P = .02), while the factor associated wit

228 months on dialysis (P < 0.001), and delayed graft failure (P = 0.006) were predictive of nonnormaliz

229 icroangiopathy (TMA) significantly predicted graft failure (P = 0.045).

230 No associations were observed for graft failure (P = 0.18).Vitamin B-6 deficiency is commo

231 Meier analysis demonstrated a lower risk for graft failure (P=0.004) but not cardiovascular (P=0.30)

232 erweight, was associated with higher risk of graft failure (P=0.01).

233 f graft success (unadjusted hazard ratio for graft failure per additional day of PT, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.

234 ac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and primary graft failure (PGF).

235 prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal after graft failure preserves nonsensitization status (PRA 0%)

236 yclophosphamide dose based on assessments of graft failure (primary or secondary), toxicity, and earl

237 l alterations of DM in donor corneas and the graft failure rate after DMEK.

238 The 10-year graft failure rate was 23% in the 199 patients receiving

239 The secondary graft failure rate was significantly higher in the abnor

240 ter penetrating keratoplasty leads to a high graft failure rate.

241 , cardiac allograft vasculopathy, or primary graft failure rates in hearts accepted for transplantati

242 Absolute graft failure rates were highest in ages 25 to 29 years

243 nt protocol effectively and safely prevented graft failure/rejection and significantly increased thal

244 The incidence of graft failure/rejection was significantly higher in the

245 o determine risks of death or death-censored graft failure related to percentage change in eGFR betwe

246 antation continue to improve but etiology of graft failure remains unclear.

247 jection (13.3% vs 10.5%, P = 0.36) and liver graft failure requiring re-transplantation (3.2% vs 2.3%

248 evaluate graft survival and risk factors for graft failure, respectively.

249 Composite of posttransplant death and graft failure (retransplantation).

250 ath (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 11.79) or graft failure/retransplantation (aHR = 3.24).

251 association between recipient sex and kidney graft failure risk differs by recipient age and donor se

252 Graft failure risk is highest during emerging adulthood

253 s aged >/=45 years had a significantly lower graft failure risk than their male counterparts had (0.9

254 aged 15-24 years had a significantly higher graft failure risk than their male counterparts had (1.2

255 Lower T50 was also associated with increased graft failure risk.

256 ree survival, defined as being alive without graft failure; risk factors were studied using a Cox reg

257 first isolated liver transplant recipients, graft failure risks are highest in the period from 21 to

258 females of all ages had significantly higher graft failure risks than males (adjusted hazard ratios 0

259 t survival, sensitization, increased risk of graft failure seen during late adolescence, and differen

260 er primary DMEK because graft detachment and graft failure tended to recur, suggesting that intrinsic

261 C4d deposits had a 4.3 times higher risk of graft failure than those with negative staining and a si

262 ssociated with early (90 days) mortality and graft failure, though a likely but undefined reporting b

263 omission (0 mg/kg) resulted in unacceptable graft failure (three of three patients had secondary gra

264 graft vasculopathy up to 5 years and primary graft failure up to 30 days of follow-up post transplant

265 An index that is derived to predict graft failure using donor and recipient factors, based o

266 Frequency of graft failure was 10%.

267 els, the covariate-adjusted hazard ratio for graft failure was 2.03 (95%CI, 1.05-3.92; P = 0.04) for

268 Islet graft failure was 25-fold more likely in the lowest-yiel

269 strongest independent risk factor for islet graft failure was a low islet yield-in islet equivalents

270 Acute graft failure was defined as AKI stages 1 to 3 (Acute Ki

271 The hazard of graft failure was estimated at each current age using a

272 The risk of graft failure was found to increase around the age of 13

273 The 10-year cumulative probability of graft failure was higher in participants with PACE than

274 he predictive performance of proteinuria for graft failure was lower at 3 months after transplant (ar

275 Prediction of graft failure was not independent of AMR.

276 al differentiation of prerenal and intrinsic graft failure was performed either by biopsy or by a cli

277 One graft rejection leading to graft failure was seen and was excluded from endothelial

278 ion between diagnosis type (COPD or IPF) and graft failure was significant (P = .049).

279 Graft failure was the most common cause of death, accoun

280 Graft failure was the predominant cause of mortality.

281 the factor associated with increased risk of graft failure was usage of antiglaucoma agents (P = .01)

282 oteinuria <0.3 g/24 h, the hazard ratios for graft failure were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [95% CI

283 d the associations of T50 with mortality and graft failure were analyzed over a median follow-up of 3

284 l [CI]:1.08-1.26), but post-LT mortality and graft failure were comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01;

285 The associations of T50 with mortality and graft failure were confirmed in an independent replicati

286 Predictors of IMA graft failure were LAD stenosis <75% (odds ratio, 1.76;

287 No graft failures were present.

288 med DSA demonstrated elevated risks of early graft failure, whereas those with de novo DSA experience

289 risks of subsequent death and death-censored graft failure, which mirrors findings in CKD.

290 cation of LT recipients at increased risk of graft failure who could benefit from closer surveillance

291 e outcomes of KPro surgery for donor corneal graft failure with a greater likelihood of maintaining v

292 eyes of 15 patients that underwent DMEK for graft failure with corneal decompensation following DSAE

293 Three patients (8%) had graft failure with cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg and six (15

294 large-vessel thrombosis and TMA, leading to graft failure with shortened survival.

295 luate management of patients with intestinal graft failure with special reference to indications and

296 These findings were correlated with pancreas graft failure within 1-year after surgery by using Cox p

297 ransplant factors influencing the outcome of graft failure within 30 days were selected using a machi

298 s associated with a 50% reduction in risk of graft failure within 5 years in the first eye (FED: haza

299 y values that are highly predictive of early graft failure within 90 days.

300 isease increases the risk of death and renal graft failure, yet patients with hepatitis C and chronic