ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft survival

1 vival and death-censored allograft survival (graft survival).

2 center post-Share 35 had an improved 1-year graft survival.

3 s with duct-to-duct reconstruction and lower graft survival.

4 equired for sufficiently improving long-term graft survival.

5 ll-known association of HLA antigen MMs with graft survival.

6 y transplant recipients (KTR) can compromise graft survival.

7 s (dnDSAs) have been associated with reduced graft survival.

8 ith no DGF post-KT, and improved patient and graft survival.

9 tibody-mediated rejection and poor long-term graft survival.

10 GCR in these lymphocyte subsets may improve graft survival.

11 does not accurately predict pediatric kidney graft survival.

12 inically applicable as a strategy to improve graft survival.

13 espectively) were not associated with poorer graft survival.

14 own to induce nephropathy (BKVN), decreasing graft survival.

15 q-nonbinding de novo DSA could lead to lower graft survival.

16 for the development of strategies to prolong graft survival.

17 of the recipient bed to further improve fat graft survival.

18 Residential location was not associated with graft survival.

19 cy transplantation were associated with poor graft survival.

20 There was no difference in patient or graft survival.

21 ociate with a profound effect on patient and graft survival.

22 y dampen the alloimmune response and prolong graft survival.

23 n has a modest effect on improving long-term graft survival.

24 and serially monitored for alloantibody and graft survival.

25 tcomes, patient survival, and slightly worse graft survival.

26 nts were independently associated with worse graft survival.

27 sed delayed graft function and could improve graft survival.

28 nsplant waiting times, patient survival, and graft survival.

29 location is associated with patient but not graft survival.

30 were independent prognostic factors for poor graft survival.

31 imary) had decreased mid-term death censored graft survival.

32 nderstanding of chronic injury and modestly, graft survival.

33 ic islet engraftment and of allogeneic islet graft survival.

34 did however correlate with reduced long-term graft survival.

35 isease-free and overall patient survival and graft survival.

36 lution within the first year portends longer graft survival.

37 n the first years should expect an excellent graft survival.

38 GCR in these lymphocyte subsets may improve graft survival.

39 eGFR 33 vs. 47 mL/min; P=0.007) but similar graft survival.

40 onor HbA1c levels and postoperative pancreas graft survival.

41 tions posttransplant is critical to ensuring graft survival.

42 estigate the effects of induction therapy on graft survival.

43 odels dramatically reduced GVHD and improved graft survival.

44 The primary outcome was graft survival.

45 ith adjustment for variables known to affect graft survival.

46 otential therapeutic target to prolong islet graft survival.

47 nts were independently associated with worse graft survival.

48 lyzed for their association with patient and graft survivals.

49 8 patients did not reveal any differences in graft survivals.

50 and recipient characteristics on patient and graft survivals.

51 or outcome data included overall patient and graft survivals.

52 d predictive accuracy (area under the curve: graft survival, 0.69; patient survival, 0.69).

53 this analysis, the cumulative difference in graft survival 1 year after transplant was 115 years, an

54 89%; P < 0.01), but decreased death-censored graft survival (5 years: preKT, 93%; dialysis < 1 year,

55 ival, 67.3%), and at least 6 months (10-year graft survival, 53.0%) after transplantation did not adv

56 enosis occurring less than 3 months (10-year graft survival, 59.1%), at least 3 months (10-year graft

57 ed in Finland 1982-2013 with at least 1-year graft survival (6311 person-year follow-up).

58 survival, 59.1%), at least 3 months (10-year graft survival, 67.3%), and at least 6 months (10-year g

59 Among the SHK arm of our study, 5-year graft survival (72% [SHK] vs 73% [KTA], P = 0.71) did no

60 r posttransplant recovery, better intestinal graft survival (79% vs. 60%), a lower intestinal rejecti

61 sus 42 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); P=0.31), 2-year graft survival (81% versus 96%; P=0.12), urinary protein

62 for donors with AKI than for those without (graft survival 89% vs. 91%, p = 0.02; odds ratio (OR) 1.

63 ications (20% vs 46%, P = 0.042), and 1-year graft survival (90% vs 69%, P = 0.035).

64 ng from 0 to 4 were comparable (1 and 3 year graft survival 95% and 92%), but were much poorer for ki

65 w (<400 mL/min) on biliary complications and graft survival after deceased donor liver transplantatio

66 Median graft survival after diagnosis was 6 (1-62) months.

67 Long-term graft survival after EK and PK is high and comparable de

68 n together, AAT significantly improves islet graft survival after intraportal islet transplantation b

69 idney injuries (AKI) that decrease long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation.

70 molecules of the lectin pathway on long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation.

71 Patient and graft survival after pancreas transplantation are superi

72 wn excellent results in patient and pancreas graft survivals after 30 years of pancreas transplantati

73 We found improved patient and graft survivals after introduction of mycophenolate mofe

74 ether this translates to improved patient or graft survival among transplant recipients.

75 Patient and graft survivals among 54 ABOi recipients were 98.1% and

76 e overall graft survivals and death censored graft survivals among groups were not statistically diff

77 TV) represents a major obstacle to long-term graft survival and correlates with severity of ischemia

78 lan-Meier methods were used to estimate host/graft survival and cumulative incidence of biopsy proven

79 e production and is associated with improved graft survival and decreased severity of graft-versus-ho

80 I) based on donor characteristics to predict graft survival and divides kidneys into 4 quality groups

81 However, kidney graft survival and function were no different than usual

82 ith desensitization led to nearly equivalent graft survival and functional outcomes in HS pediatric p

83 The ABMR showed a significant benefit for graft survival and glomerular filtration rate at 5 years

84 Likewise, the inferior 1-year graft survival and higher incidence of ischemic cholangi

85 novel immunomodulatory strategies to prolong graft survival and improve outcomes following transplant

86 Graft survival and infections were compared between 2 gr

87 decision tool to predict the probability of graft survival and patient survival for first-time kidne

88 e offers been accepted, the probabilities of graft survival and patient survival were typically highe

89 ell preparation methodology, with successful graft survival and putamenal dopamine innervation, there

90 lantation results in excellent outcomes with graft survival and rejection rates comparable with compa

91 censored and technically successful pancreas graft survival and rejection rates of each group were co

92 sis and Cox regression were used to evaluate graft survival and risk factors for graft failure, respe

93 pients involves a balance between maximizing graft survival and serious adverse outcomes.

94 ion, was associated with similar patient and graft survival and significantly improved renal function

95 would not accurately predict pediatric donor graft survival and superior predictive models could be c

96 chymal stromal cells can prolong solid organ graft survival and that they can induce immune tolerance

97 roteinuria and SHT were associated with poor graft survival and the combination of the two led to the

98 ven years after transplantation, patient and graft survival and the mean eGFR were significantly high

99 Graft survival and time to transplant glomerulopathy (TG

100 10R4, which have similar efficacy to prolong graft survival and to delay cardiac allograft vasculopat

101 uppressants, and the impact of exhaustion on graft survival and tolerance development remains a ferti

102 austion may provide a novel means to promote graft survival and transplantation tolerance.

103 els for assessing posttransplant patient and graft survival and, in collaboration with the SRTR Techn

104 The overall graft survivals and death censored graft survivals among

105 Patient survival, graft survival, and adverse events did not differ when f

106 port the incidence, microbiological profile, graft survival, and determining factors of microbial ker

107 r calcification, renal function, patient and graft survival, and economic cost.

108 ical inflammation that can negatively affect graft survival, and ignore specific risks and immune mec

109 edicare claims to estimate cumulative costs, graft survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

110 y, in-hospital mortality, metabolic outcome, graft survival, and insulin-free survival after salvage

111 ence of the medium-term to long-term safety, graft survival, and possible biological activity of plur

112 n continues to provide excellent patient and graft survival, and stable renal function over 4 years.

113 reg, but not induced Treg, failed to prolong graft survival as effectively as wild-type Treg.

114 ant cancer had a similar overall patient and graft survival as recipients without such cancer.

115 uency of AD-MSC treatment on immunologic and graft survival as well as graft vasculopathy outcomes af

116 However, the transplant patient and graft survival as well as risk of unexpected transmissio

117 surveillance and follow-up data, patient and graft survival, as well as outcomes with respect to reje

118 Pancreas graft survival at 1 year did not differ significantly be

119 ignificant differences existed in patient or graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years (P = 0.747 and P = 0

120 Graft survival at 30 days (primary outcome) was not stat

121 Graft survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95%, 83%, and

122 Death-censored graft survival at last follow-up was 100% in the ABOi an

123 mated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and graft-survival at 90 days and 1 year was analyzed.

124 Main outcome measures were graft survival, BCVA, refraction, and ECD.

125 In addition, only r-ATG was associated with graft survival benefit over no-induction category (hazar

126 perience demonstrates comparable patient and graft survival between obese and nonobese liver transpla

127 t PI3Kgamma or PI3Kdelta deficiency prolongs graft survival, but selective inhibition of PI3Kgamma or

128 th stable graft function, and (2) maximizing graft survival by avoiding the aforementioned allorecogn

129 ection) predicted death-censored and overall graft survival (c statistics =0.84 and 0.78, respectivel

130 enging, successful transplantation with good graft survival can be obtained.

131 f age at second transplant have lower second graft survival compared to other age groups; P less than

132 plications and has similar intermediate-term graft survival compared to primary PAK transplantation.

133 lant recipients experience worse patient and graft survival compared with nonindigenous recipients, w

134 ter transplantation did not adversely affect graft survival compared with that of the control group (

135 The presence of v-lesions had no effect on graft survival compared with the absence of v-lesions.

136 The preexisting DSA ABMR had superior graft survival compared with the de novo DSA ABMR (63% v

137 ere the effect of time of stricture onset on graft survival, complications, and risk factors for recu

138 Increased graft survival correlated with reduced type I IFN signal

139 en and improvements in strategies to prolong graft survival could substantially reduce disparities in

140 ient, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = 0.41), or graft survival (DBD HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.10; P = 12;

141 lomerular filtration rate and death-censored graft survival (DCGS).

142 Administration of cyclosporine-A to enhance graft survival demonstrated that immune suppression can

143 pigenome of the donor may also impact kidney graft survival, especially those epigenetic modification

144 ntigen (2-digit specificity) MMs with kidney graft survival, estimated AA MMs at peptide-binding site

145 ependent significant risk factor for shorter graft survival, even when adjusted for other covariates.

146 Two-year graft survival following EK was lower compared with PK (

147 nt, there were no significant differences in graft survival for LL recipients (86% [95% confidence in

148 Median uncensored graft survival for patients transplanted after the year

149 rd deviation [SD], 26.6) months, the overall graft survival for recipients who received immunoadsorpt

150 e transferred patients did not have inferior graft survival from the point of transfer (HR 0.28; 95%

151 Outcomes including patient/graft survival, graft function, operative parameters, an

152 In the case of technically successful graft survival, graft losses due to technical problems i

153 ear actuarial overall patient survival (PS), graft survival (GS), death-censored GS (DCGS), and acute

154 Although short-term graft survival has significantly improved as advances in

155 ression have occurred, long-term patient and graft survival have not.

156 EK graft survival improved over time, suggesting a learning

157 EK graft survival improved significantly over time while re

158 Five-year pancreas graft survival improved to 80.3% (P = 0.026).

159 ber 1987 to May 2009 examining second kidney graft survival in 2281 patients who received their first

160 nalyzed the impact of HLA matching on kidney graft survival in 3627 pediatric living donor transplant

161 ymphangiogenic therapies on alloimmunity and graft survival in a murine model of high-risk corneal tr

162 ephritides, although this remains lower than graft survival in ADPKD, and confirms that the reluctanc

163 opean study shows favorable long-term kidney graft survival in all primary glomerulonephritides, alth

164 APCs (tolAPCs) in donor corneas can enhance graft survival in corneal allograft recipients with infl

165 ce the risk of DGF could potentially improve graft survival in DCD kidney transplants.

166 Median (298 days) and longest (945 days) graft survival in five consecutive recipients using this

167 T-based therapy has the potential to improve graft survival in human islet transplantation and other

168 CD45RB blockade prolonged graft survival in low affinity-primed mice, but not in h

169 on of Share 35 as the strongest predictor of graft survival in MELD of 40 or higher liver transplanta

170 d subjects (31% vs. 18%; P = 0.03); however, graft survival in modulated subjects was not different f

171 ansfer of the same DSAs did not affect islet graft survival in murine models.

172 igned to evaluate the short-term patient and graft survival in patients who underwent IVIG-based DSA

173 tion therapy is not associated with improved graft survival in primary pediatric heart transplantatio

174 subsequent graft rejection is able to rescue graft survival in recipients that are at high risk of re

175 of ischemic time has the greatest impact on graft survival in recipients with older donation after c

176 ockade is associated with better patient and graft survival in renal transplant recipients.

177 cused on improving acute rejection rates and graft survival in the first 12 months.

178 g of prognostic factors can possibly improve graft survival in the future.

179 ivariate analysis, significant predictors of graft survival included: recipient age, biologic MELD sc

180 carcinoma, the long-term patient and kidney graft survival is excellent in patients with AAN, provid

181 Kidney graft survival is inferior among SLK relative to KTA, bu

182 ional progress has been hampered by poor MSC graft survival, jeopardizing cellular and molecular base

183 (ECD), central corneal thickness (CCT), and graft survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis).

184 nt of variation (CV) from month 4 to 12, (2) graft survival longer than 1 year, and (3) absence of pr

185 vious pediatric kidney transplant with first graft survival longer than 30 days, but shorter than 5 y

186 increasing rejection or adversely affecting graft survival, making it a viable method to increase pa

187 In the death-censored graft survival model, there was no statistical differenc

188 fferent in study versus control groups, with graft survival of 64.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4

189 on upon histological analysis at 70 days and graft survival of 80% in subjects treated with 160 mg/kg

190 In pediatric kidney transplantation, graft survival of kidneys from deceased donors with 0 to

191 The overall 1-, 5-, 10-year patient and graft survival of left graft recipients was 91%, 90%, an

192 ng had a statistically significant impact on graft survival of pediatric kidney transplants (P < 0.00

193 Ten-year graft survival of pediatric transplants from living dono

194 We compared patient and graft survival of recipients with pretransplant cancer t

195 We report a small reduction in 1-year graft-survival of kidneys from donors with AKI.

196 Skin graft survival on high CD47 recipients was prolonged as

197 The primary outcomes included patient and graft survival, on- and end-of-treatment response and su

198 poorer for kidneys scoring >/=5, with 1 year graft survival only 73%, and 12.5% suffering primary non

199 s on chromosomes 14 and 18 on death-censored graft survival or all-cause mortality was not confirmed.

200 tegories, the ICER was very sensitive to the graft survival; overall both depletional antibodies were

201 ns do not have a durable effect on long-term graft survival owing to a combination of drug toxicities

202 months, were progressively related to lower graft survival (P < 0.0001).

203 ower HA flows were associated with decreased graft survival (P = 0.013).

204 d no significant difference in 1-year kidney graft survival (p = 0.24) and function between recipient

205 Death-censored graft survival, patient survival, and rejection rates we

206 Graft survival, patient survival, kidney function, rejec

207 rulonephritides had a 15-year death-adjusted graft survival probability above 55%.

208 The overall graft survival probability was 0.96 at 5 and 8 years (95

209 The cumulative graft survival rate at 4 and 7 years was 0.96 (95% confi

210 93 and the 2004-2014 periods, overall 5-year graft survival rate increased from 61.4% to 76.5% (P = .

211 There was no difference in graft survival rate regarding the original indication of

212 The 1-year graft survival rate was 51.9% and 90.7% in eyes with and

213 The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rate was 96.4%, 94.2%, and 92.0%, respect

214 sity (ECD), central corneal thickness (CCT), graft survival rate, and postoperative complications.

215 kidneys, which are associated with a reduced graft survival rate, has become widely adopted in elderl

216 Overall graft survival rates after DMEK ranged from 92% to 100%

217 ompatibility complex (MHC) matching improves graft survival rates after organ transplantation.

218 y help to address these problems and improve graft survival rates and patients' quality of life.

219 1-year graft survival rates are greater than 95% in many centre

220 ion generally achieve comparable patient and graft survival rates compared to their HIV-uninfected co

221 ield similar results in terms of patient and graft survival rates despite significant differences in

222 Recipient and graft survival rates for hearts and lungs were 75% (n =

223 Graft survival rates for kidneys and livers were 15 of 1

224 The 5-year graft survival rates in the responding patients and the

225 nts lost their graft, with 1-year and 5-year graft survival rates of 94.5% and 82.8%, respectively.

226 With 1 year renal graft survival rates of greater than 90% the best that c

227 owed promise, with 3- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates similar to those of their HIV-uninf

228 The 1-year patient and graft survival rates were similar between groups.

229 iary lesions (ITBL) with subsequent impaired graft survival rates.

230 nificantly impair primary graft function and graft survival regardless of their severity.

231 We compared outcomes including patient and graft survival, renal function, and technical complicati

232 .7(1.1 to 2.5), and 1.2(0.8 to 1.8) years of graft survival, respectively, and less than 1 year for a

233 Excellent outcomes for graft survival, satisfaction, and morbidity suggest that

234 Prior studies of sex differences in kidney graft survival showed conflicting results.

235 ximab induction was associated with improved graft survival (SHR = 0.50, P = 0.016).

236 e of graft infection, microbial profile, and graft survival status.

237 tation offers a better long-term patient and graft survival, suggesting that including the liver as p

238 demonstrates that Abx pretreatment prolongs graft survival, suggesting that targeting microbial cons

239 and may perform better to predict patients' graft survival than currently used tools.

240 ear after kidney transplant, a risk model of graft survival that incorporates clinical factors and hi

241 Alloimmunity remains a barrier to long-term graft survival that necessitates lifelong immunosuppress

242 The overall mean graft survival time was 45.2 +/- 5.8 months, with a surv

243 owed similar prevalence of graft failure and graft survival time, though a trend existed toward incre

244 Willingness to trade years of graft survival to minimize the risk of adverse outcomes

245 enting chronic allograft rejection, and that graft survival under such conditions is dependent on the

246 association of RAS blockade with patient and graft survival using time-dependent Cox and marginal str

247 ine the impact of PVT on post-LT patient and graft survival, waitlist outcomes, and the factors assoc

248 After 6 months graft survival was 100% in the COR group and 80.9% in th

249 One year graft survival was 12% higher in the group with low hist

250 Five-year graft survival was 63.6% in group 1 versus 59.1% in grou

251 Ten-year posttransplant graft survival was 68.5%, 63.6%, and 65.7% for tx alone,

252 At the end of follow-up, graft survival was 77% (10/13).

253 The 1-year and 3-year patient and graft survival was 84%.

254 Death-censored graft survival was 84%.

255 Mean graft survival was 9.5 (+/-4.4) years from donors withou

256 The post-Share 35, 1-year graft survival was 94% compared with 75% pre-Share 35 (P

257 uximab or underwent splenectomy, the overall graft survival was 94.5% (95% CI, 91.6%-96.5%) and 79.7%

258 Cumulative probability of 5-year graft survival was 95%.

259 The impact of HLA mismatches on graft survival was analyzed and survival rates of transp

260 Graft survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival

261 Posttransplantation graft survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

262 The impact of LVD on graft survival was assessed.

263 Additionally, death-adjusted graft survival was compared between living and deceased

264 At each visit, graft survival was determined by slit-lamp examination;

265 cal techniques, no noticeable improvement in graft survival was found during the last 30 years while

266 g the 88 patients with ED or PBK, the 1-year graft survival was higher with PK (90.6%) than with ELK

267 Pancreas graft survival was influenced by left or right donor kid

268 nsplants, the effect of induction therapy on graft survival was investigated using Cox-proportional h

269 However, prolongation of skin graft survival was lost when B cells were isolated from

270 at 2 and 5 years, the 10-year death-censored graft survival was lower for patients with C1q-nonbindin

271 Accordingly, graft survival was lower in the Cw/DP and the A/B/DR/DQ

272 Death-censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger a

273 Graft survival was not different (65% and 64% in the old

274 Improvement in graft survival was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P = 0.0

275 Graft survival was significantly lower in patients with

276 cell receptor (TCR) alloreactive for MHC I, graft survival was significantly prolonged and comparabl

277 Unadjusted 5-year patient and graft survival was significantly worse for liver transpl

278 Thirty-day graft survival was similar (100% NMP vs. 97.5% control,

279 alyzed at 2 years, the 5-year death-censored graft survival was similar between patients with C1q-non

280 Overall graft survival was similar between the groups.

281 One-year graft survival was slightly better in era II (n = 24 pat

282 , 5- (82% vs 73%), and 10- (71% vs 58%) year graft survival was statistically similar between both gr

283 Overall 5-year graft survival was superior for DSAEK compared with PK (

284 d surgical and postoperative regimes, 5-year graft survival was superior for DSAEK compared with PK i

285 Death-censored graft survival was unaffected.

286 "Death-adjusted graft survival" was assessed in patients with glomerulon

287 The cumulative 5-year rates of HCV-specific graft survival were 84%, 90%, and 94% for genotypes 1, 2

288 Incidence of biliary complications and graft survival were analyzed.

289 tors of preKT were examined, and patient and graft survival were compared for preKT, pretransplant di

290 Patient survival and graft survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodo

291 r rates of ischemic cholangiopathy and worse graft survival were still observed in DCD recipients.

292 or both, patient-censored and death-censored graft survivals were both 97.2% at 5 years.

293 Patient and graft survivals were significantly worse in cases with H

294 x (DLI) was based on factors shown to affect graft survival, which included donor age, sex, height, t

295 The AR type demonstrated a hierarchy for graft survival with ACR better than MAR better than AMR,

296 ia between years 1-2 and 2-3 had the poorest graft survival with an improvement if proteinuria regres

297 ) is to provide clinical benefit mediated by graft survival with nigrostriatal reinnervation.

298 kidney allografts, it resulted in indefinite graft survival with normal graft function, presence of F

299 Robotic surgery offers similar patient and graft survivals with comparable renal function to open t

300 ss ratio (ICER - cost per additional year of graft survival) within 3 years of transplantation in 19