ライフサイエンスコーパス: kidney donor

1 is critical for the selection of a potential kidney donor.

2 daveric waiting list have a prospective live kidney donor.

3 s said they would accept a close friend as a kidney donor.

4 these centers had actually used a child as a kidney donor.

5 ith KTx recipients regardless of the type of kidney donor.

6 hat is not representative of all U.S. living kidney donors.

7 but needs to be tested in healthy potential kidney donors.

8 ssential in the risk evaluation of potential kidney donors.

9 eGFR is a poor predictor of true GFR in kidney donors.

10 ies in medical conditions occur among living kidney donors.

11 the appropriateness of accepting obese live kidney donors.

12 t option for patients with incompatible live kidney donors.

13 based equations for estimating GFR in former kidney donors.

14 members, spouses, or friends to become live kidney donors.

15 828 patients had CKD and 457 were potential kidney donors.

16 hronic kidney disease (CKD) and in potential kidney donors.

17 ad to misclassification of many older living kidney donors.

18 ctron microscopy in 83 living and 53 cadaver kidney donors.

19 ssues derived from normal living and cadaver kidney donors.

20 ease the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

21 my (LDN) is the procedure of choice for live kidney donors.

22 of the short waiting time and use of living kidney donors.

23 ar filtration rate (GFR) in potential living kidney donors.

24 mal arterial branches were present in 46% of kidney donors.

25 ease the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

26 -being and a boost in self-esteem for living kidney donors.

27 determining renal vascular anatomy in living kidney donors.

28 lic permeability by 66% compared with normal kidney donors.

29 ters are opposed to using children as living kidney donors.

30 ions of 132 kidneys in 66 healthy, potential kidney donors.

31 tically unrelated) people (e.g., spouses) as kidney donors.

32 isk variants were genotyped in additional AA kidney donors.

33 d prevent adverse outcomes in living related kidney donors.

34 in RTRs compared with 85 +/- 25 mmol/24 h in kidney donors.

35 nsent and varies substantially across living kidney donors.

36 idates and to inform acceptance criteria for kidney donors.

37 ict long-term renal outcomes in white living kidney donors.

38 ult was consistent across different types of kidney donors.

39 x volume [RCV]) were performed in 101 living kidney donors.

40 R: 1.9-12.0 y) after transplantation and 253 kidney donors.

41 tions of current voters toward paying living kidney donors.

42 ate, eGFR) of the remaining kidney in living kidney donors.

43 t studies of financial incentives for living kidney donors.

44 h might be alleviated by compensating living kidney donors.

45 PCCs were studied in 42 normal adrenals from kidney donors.

46 cept for 1A, different from those in healthy kidney donors.

47 tively benign renal outcomes for most living kidney donors.

48 on might increase the cardiovascular risk in kidney donors.

49 we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of do

50 linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from a priva

51 Among 90 013 living kidney donors, 2001-2016, proportions who were very obes

52 From a population of 3,698 living kidney donors, 257 donors were randomly selected to unde

53 r their views and practices regarding living kidney donors; 44% of these organizations responded.

54 ong-term outcomes of African American living kidney donors (AALKDs).

55 based GFR prediction equations in 187 former kidney donors against iohexol GFR for measuring GFR.

56 d in 127 normal adrenal glands from deceased kidney donors (age, 9 months to 68 years).

57 aged 18 to 59 years with a hypothetical live kidney donor aged 50 years and four HLA mismatches, the

58 they would offer life insurance to a healthy kidney donor and only one believed it might raise the pr

59 terquartile range [IQR], 3.9-11.5 years) for kidney donors and 15.0 years (IQR, 13.7-15.0 years) for

60 n was 30.8 per 10,000 (95% CI, 24.3-38.5) in kidney donors and 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.8-8.9) in th

61 1 risk alleles among African American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African

62 ival data were compared with those from live kidney donors and healthy participants of the National H

63 tion is critical in the evaluation of living kidney donors and higher donor glomerular filtration rat

64 niques is often present in excellent cadaver kidney donors and is not detected by dipstick testing.

65 liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donors and NHANES participants (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1

66 rmal kidney samples from living and deceased kidney donors and normal poles of nephrectomies.

67 lant registry to select a cohort of deceased kidney donors and the corresponding transplant recipient

68 Thirteen healthy kidney donors and their corresponding recipients prospec

69 Thirteen healthy kidney donors and their corresponding recipients underwe

70 Survey of previous directed living kidney donors and their recipients in a single Canadian

71 Evaluation and eligibility of live kidney donors and their short- and long-term risks are d

72 upernumerary arteries were present in 49% of kidney donors and were bilateral in approximately 17%.

73 may influence hypothetical and actual living kidney donors and where appropriate, summarizes the quan

74 ed risk of ESRD has been reported for living kidney donors, and appears to be higher for those donati

75 ine protein excretion in 23 "normal" cadaver kidney donors, and correlated results with urine protein

76 mpacting allograft survival from deceased AA kidney donors, APOL1 renal-risk variants were genotyped

77 l and the risk of ESRD in carefully screened kidney donors appear to be similar to those in the gener

78 h prudent selection, the use of obese living kidney donors appears safe in the short term.

79 e profound organ shortages, the use of older kidney donors appears to be an equivalent or beneficial

80 Recent evidence suggests that living kidney donors are at an increased risk of end-stage rena

81 le cautious criteria for selection of living kidney donors are credited for favorable outcomes, recen

82 Data regarding health outcomes among living kidney donors are lacking, especially among nonwhite per

83 The acceptance criteria used for living kidney donors are largely theoretical, as they are not c

84 Kidney donors are selected for health and lack the spect

85 einuria, reduced GFR, and ESRD in 3956 white kidney donors, assessed the contribution of postdonation

86 Societal plight driving caution about living kidney donor assessment was emphasized in the context of

87 We evaluated 1638 living kidney donors at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ sites) and Cleve

88 es genetic testing in the evaluation of live kidney donors at risk for ADPKD whose disease status can

89 ompanies are still willing to insure healthy kidney donors at standard rates.

90 We identified 1388 living kidney donors at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clini

91 mated the number of potential imminent death kidney donors at the University of Wisconsin Hospital an

92 ine protein, and microalbumin) in 148 living kidney donors before and 6 to 12 months after nephrectom

93 Urines from kidney donors before nephrectomy, pretransplant patients

94 ucational programs in this field to let many kidney donors benefit.

95 One thousand six hundred sequential living kidney donor biopsies were performed between 2001 and 20

96 d for more comprehensive follow-up of living kidney donors, both for the donor's benefit and to estab

97 ed 'hypothetical' willingness to be a living kidney donor but with marked heterogeneity in the absolu

98 r as the leading cause of death among living kidney donors, but information on the burden of cancer o

99 Kidney donors can develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

100 mon in young, otherwise healthy, prospective kidney donor candidates with persistent, asymptomatic, m

101 of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increasing emp

102 signed to measure the expectations of living kidney donor candidates.

103 rojected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance criteri

104 Forty-two living kidney donors (Caucasian; 76% female [n=32]; 53 +/- 10 y

105 11 patients from Birmingham, United Kingdom, kidney donor CC genotype at C3435T (rs1045642) within AB

106 tial or total nephrectomy in previous living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors.

107 Among a cohort of live kidney donors compared with a healthy matched cohort, th

108 psychologically screened unspecified living kidney donors completed the Symptom Checklist before and

109 ties for long-term costs generated by living kidney donors contributes to the problem was examined by

110 m method for evaluation of renal function in kidney donors deserves further study.

111 During this same time period, 102 previous kidney donors developed kidney failure and were listed f

112 6 nonobese (body mass index<27 kg/m2) living kidney donors donating at a single institution between 1

113 d have been available from the OPTN deceased kidney donors during 2002 to 2004 were investigated.

114 Our data suggests that postdonation, kidney donor eGFR increases each year for a number of ye

115 compare the outcomes of the first 60 living kidney donors enrolled in our enhanced recovery program

116 id (DTPA) renal studies as part of a routine kidney donor evaluation at either Brigham and Women's Ho

117 ansplant professional perspectives on living kidney donor evaluation in Asia.

118 arch on individuals who withdraw from living kidney donor evaluation.

119 past few years, the implementation of paired kidney donor exchange programs and the development of pr

120 o undergo nephrectomy or adults who serve as kidney donors exhibit little difference in renal functio

121 We performed a modeled analysis of kidney donor extraction rates by age, gender, race, caus

122 sensitized then be avoided when selecting a kidney donor for them.

123 who underwent blood typing as potential live kidney donors for recipients being evaluated for transpl

124 ped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association of TL

125 ped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association of TL

126 Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy will af

127 sement from insurance providers for a living kidney donor from 47% to 85% of the amount billed.

128 tation Network registrations for 4650 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2007 with administrative data

129 We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Orga

130 status and development of ESRD in 143 living kidney donors from 1994 to 2007 with predonation impaire

131 a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011.

132 he study population consisted of 3074 living kidney donors from 28 centers during 2004 and 2005.

133 Hemorrhagic deaths of living kidney donors from failure of vascular clips used on the

134 prospective cohort study involving deceased kidney donors from five organ procurement organizations.

135 ve study of 4650 persons who had been living kidney donors from October 1987 through July 2007 and wh

136 In the kidney donor group, the MDRD equation significantly unde

137 Compared with matched healthy nondonors, kidney donors had an increased risk of ESRD over a media

138 Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the g

139 CysC) and serum creatinine (Creat) in living kidney donors has not been studied before.

140 Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs

141 show that attitudes toward unrelated living kidney donors have gradually become much more liberal.

142 Previous studies of living kidney donors have not specifically examined subsets wit

143 In summary, hypertensive living kidney donors have similar outcome in terms of blood pre

144 The overall evidence suggests that living kidney donors have survival similar to that of nondonors

145 e, and demographic characteristics to living kidney donors' homes between 2010 and 2012.

146 No living kidney donor in our cohort received a partial or total n

147 ntation Network identifiers for 4,650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to administrat

148 antation Network identifiers for 4650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to administrat

149 etwork (OPTN) registry data for 4,007 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2008 with Medicare billing clai

150 umbilicus) outcomes justify application for kidney donors in experienced centers and may motivate ad

151 viewed the predonation charts for all living kidney donors in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and 2010 a

152 The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the developm

153 e records of all patients who were cadaveric kidney donors in the state of Louisiana between Septembe

154 scopic donor nephrectomies in 2006, two live kidney donors in the United States and one in India have

155 a mandated national registry of 80 347 live kidney donors in the United States between April 1, 1994

156 TTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 96,217 kidney donors in the United States between April 1994 an

157 The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 200

158 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3.5 to 5.3 times

159 ata on all African-American and white living kidney donors in the United States who were registered i

160 average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized est

161 s with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.

162 d to provide this follow-up of former living kidney donors, including concerns that donor insurance w

163 As use of older kidney donors increases, overall survival among kidney t

164 ucted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies after

165 candidate's only medically-acceptable living kidney donor is ABO incompatible, the most common practi

166 eutic options for patients whose only living kidney donor is ABO incompatible, with a specific emphas

167 increased compared with CRT if the cadaveric kidney donor is much younger or with fewer HLA mismatche

168 ealth outcomes among demographically diverse kidney donors is needed.

169 can American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed.

170 emographic characteristics with HL in living kidney donors (LD), living donor kidney transplant recip

171 strate that graft survival from older living kidney donors (LD; age>60 years) is worse than younger L

172 serve as a primary motivating factor, living kidney donors (LDs) also may expect to accrue some perso

173 undred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) trans

174 irical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both

175 We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016

176 g to emotionally related or living unrelated kidney donors more often than in the past.

177 Females are live kidney donors more often than males.

178 Preventing complications for living kidney donors must be paramount in addressing end-stage

179 Over 5,000 living kidney donor nephrectomies are performed annually in the

180 rge group of obese (ObD) and nonobese living kidney donors (NObD).

181 r diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval

182 e donation are mostly for the recipient, but kidney donors often have improved quality of life as a r

183 Carefully screened prediabetic living kidney donors often revert to normal fasting glucose and

184 about the long-term outcomes of obese living kidney donors (OLKDs).

185 antation centers do not follow former living kidney donors on a long-term basis.

186 shed regarding the effect of advertising for kidney donors on transplant centers.

187 w often and the reasons why potential living kidney donors opt out of the donor evaluation process fo

188 The national shortage of suitable kidney donor organs has disproportional and adverse effe

189 ey transplants has made the expansion of the kidney donor pool a clinically significant issue.

190 ation is an accepted method of expanding the kidney donor pool but there is little analysis of the pr

191 h has not been matched by an increase in the kidney donor pool.

192 e kidney donation and has increased the live kidney donor pool.

193 nsify the demand for expansion of the living-kidney-donor pool.

194 In potential kidney donors, prediction equations may not be sufficien

195 evaluated glomerular dynamics in a cohort of kidney donors prior to, within 1 year of, and several ye

196 ctive antibody > 20%, African American race, Kidney Donor Profile Index > 50%, cold ischemia time > 2

197 Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index >/= 85) was modeled with mult

198 Kidneys with "high" Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) are often biopsied and

199 sed donor kidney allocation algorithm uses a Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) based on donor charact

200 The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) is a more precise dono

201 by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 3

202 han 60 years, accepting a kidney with a high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score could enable ear

203 Central to this system is the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), a metric intended to

204 kidney allocation policy that introduces the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), which gives scores of

205 ing the donor pool with a maximum acceptable kidney donor profile index (KDPI).

206 an (range) donor age of 67 (29-83) years and Kidney Donor Profile Index of 93 (19-100).

207 achieved with expanded criteria donor, high Kidney Donor Profile Index or advanced age kidneys are p

208 ed age kidneys, we assessed the value of the Kidney Donor Profile Index policy, preimplantation biops

209 is "framed." Thus, labeling a kidney as high Kidney Donor Profile Index results in higher discard rat

210 eristic curve was approximately 0.87 for all Kidney Donor Profile Index thresholds and timeframes con

211 eive an offer for a deceased-donor kidney at Kidney Donor Profile Index thresholds of 0.2, 0.4, and 0

212 hich allocates kidneys in the top 20% of the kidney donor profile index to candidates in the top 20%

213 It is hoped that the kidney donor profile index will improve risk assessment

214 likely hepatitis C positive and had a higher kidney donor profile index.

215 we studied donor risk factors in 248 living kidney donor-recipient pairs.

216 h an exchange arrangement between two living kidney donor-recipient pairs.

217 ospective analysis of 125 consecutive living kidney donor/recipient pairs.

218 e the experiences and expectations of living kidney donors regarding follow-up and self-care after do

219 d New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry over 2004 to 2012.

220 Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual risk fa

221 tion obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney donors remains controversial.

222 ntly greater in cadaver compared with living kidney donors, respectively.

223 hypertension, and obesity and a higher mean kidney donor risk index (all P<0.001).

224 Donor quality was determined by the kidney donor risk index (DRI), and was compared between

225 gistrants (IRR, 1.01; P < 0.001), and higher kidney donor risk index (IRR, 1.98; P < 0.001) were asso

226 discard risk, for kidneys within a range of kidney donor risk index (KDRI) 1.4-2.1 that included bot

227 We propose a continuous kidney donor risk index (KDRI) for deceased donor kidney

228 TAR files) to investigate the utility of the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) versus delayed graft func

229 s received higher-quality allografts (median kidney donor risk index 0.67 versus 0.90 for nondonors;

230 mine the benefit and challenges of using the Kidney Donor Risk Index as the sole decision tool.

231 A Kidney Donor Risk Index based on five donor variables pr

232 The model outperformed the Kidney Donor Risk Index in predicting discard (P < 0.001

233 n donor age rose from 26 to 43 years; median Kidney Donor Risk Index increased from 1.1 in 1994 to 1.

234 A United Kingdom Kidney Donor Risk Index was derived from the model and v

235 ant dialysis duration, kidney cold ischemia, kidney donor risk index, and recipient hyperlipidemia.

236 Models controlled for kidney donor risk index, waitlist time, and kidney pumpi

237 ation and to develop a clinically applicable Kidney Donor Risk Index.

238 Kidney quality was assessed by kidney donor risk index.

239 sis of the A and H antigen expression on the kidney donor's erythrocytes suggested that this donor di

240 Little is known about living kidney donors' satisfaction with life (SWL) after donati

241 rogate outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

242 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal with acce

243 Among kidney donors, seroprevalence was low, 4.0% (2/50), and

244 strikingly uniform and indicate that healthy kidney donors should be able to obtain and maintain heal

245 Previous studies concluded that healthy kidney donors should be able to obtain life insurance at

246 cified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKDs).

247 Each recipient had a negative posttransplant kidney donor specific flow cytometry crossmatch.

248 or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in 15 of 1

249 eclampsia was more likely to be diagnosed in kidney donors than in matched nondonors with similar ind

250 cs that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, the 15-year projections of the risk of ES

251 Among healthy adult kidney donors, the single-nephron GFR was fairly constan

252 ients with a solitary kidney, such as living kidney donors, the surgical treatment of renal tumors ma

253 Even within programs that use unspecified kidney donors, there is a lack of consensus regarding ho

254 Although AAs comprised 14.3% of all living kidney donors, they constituted 44% of donors reaching t

255 In the setting of multiple potential living kidney donors, this quantitative tool may facilitate the

256 structure should be derived only from living kidney donor tissues.

257 mation and obtain informed consent from live kidney donors to assist the transplant community in opti

258 Two thirds would not allow anonymous kidney donors to direct their gifts to a member of a spe

259 on showed profiles that ranged from those of kidney donors to those of advanced kidney disease.

260 We enrolled 21 adult living kidney donors to undergo detailed long-term clinical, ph

261 nic kidney disease toward receiving a living kidney donor transplant.

262 ribution to the ethnic differences in living kidney donor transplantation have not been adequately st

263 Living kidney donor transplantation, universally recognized as

264 ty patients have lower probability of living kidney donor transplantation.

265 s recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

266 and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

267 recipients bolster public support for living kidney donor transplantation; however, ethical dilemmas

268 ram has helped maintain the volume of living kidney donor transplants in Canada over the past 5 years

269 osocial and physical outcomes in unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKD

270 Lennerling et al.'s finding that prospective kidney donors understood their decisions as "the only op

271 profile of Australian and New Zealand living kidney donors using data from the Australia and New Zeal

272 ing trend in acceptance of very obese living kidney donors, variation across centers is significant.

273 Bone marrow harvested from the kidney donor was depleted of mature alloantigen-presenti

274 Implementation of an ERP for living kidney donors was associated with reduced LOS and decrea

275 The survival of kidney donors was similar to that of controls who were m

276 To reduce the morbidity of living kidney donors we introduced ketorolac-based analgesia fo

277 ce companies currently view and treat living kidney donors, we mailed a survey to the medical directo

278 ozocin (STZ) and islets from bone marrow and kidney donor were transplanted without immunosuppression

279 We hypothesized that African Americans (AA) kidney donors were at greater risk for kidney failure.

280 Thirty-eight living kidney donors were included.

281 In all, 30.3% of referred potential live kidney donors were lost to follow-up.

282 Unspecified kidney donors were more engaged in other altruistic beha

283 Unspecified kidney donors were older (54 years vs. 44 years; P<0.001

284 En bloc kidney donors were on average younger (12+/-10 vs. 24+/-

285 at most bills for follow-up visits of living kidney donors were paid by insurance companies, at a rat

286 Live kidney donors were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to LDN (n=5

287 Biopsies from 10 normal kidney donors were used as controls.

288 of individuals wishing to volunteer to be a kidney donor who have no intended recipient specified.

289 rs Evaluation (RELIVE) Study evaluated 8,951 kidney donors who donated between 1963 and 2007 at three

290 tal status and lifetime risk of ESRD in 3698 kidney donors who donated kidneys during the period from

291 Living kidney donors who felt well and confident about their he

292 ation of extraordinary altruists: altruistic kidney donors who volunteered to donate a kidney to a st

293 We analyzed 96 live kidney donors, who had anatomical asymmetry (>10% renal

294 We report a liver and kidney donor with HELLP syndrome and describe the progre

295 The number of living kidney donors with no preexisting relationship to the re

296 Potential living kidney donors with prediabetes are often excluded from d

297 rm and 1- and 5-year renal outcome of living kidney donors with preexistent hypertension.

298 reater magnitude of glomerulopenia in living kidney donors with preexisting hypertension justifies th

299 Living kidney donors with three separate risk factors (older ag