ライフサイエンスコーパス: liver donor

1 impact the availability of suitable deceased liver donors.

2 ation was observed among multiple kidney and liver donors.

3 ons and matched adjacent normal pairs, and 3 liver donors.

4 ing donors: 35 RL liver donors and 45 LL/LLS liver donors.

5 plications in RL liver donors than in LL/LLS liver donors.

6 prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors.

7 erienced more postoperative pain than LL/LLS liver donors.

8 rence in Clavien grade 2 complications in RL liver donors.

9 n, there is little comparable information on liver donors.

10 omy can be performed safely in healthy adult liver donors.

11 social" screening items of living kidney and liver donors.

12 ti-HBc-positive donors have been excluded as liver donors.

13 life using both cadaveric and living-related liver donors.

14 In potential liver donors, 100 consecutive hepatic CT angiograms were

15 cations in RL liver donors (51%) than LL/LLS liver donors (20%).

16 were performed in 44 consecutive right lobe liver donors (25 men, 19 women; mean age, 37 years).

17 ere was a higher rate of complications in RL liver donors (51%) than LL/LLS liver donors (20%).

18 f normal saline in 143 consecutive potential liver donors (81 men and 62 women; mean age, 37 years);

19 70-92 (n = 1043) were compared with average liver donors (ALDs) aged 18-69 (n = 15,878) and ideal li

20 A consensus has been reached that liver donor allocation should be based primarily on live

21 ) in 2002 represented a fundamental shift in liver donor allocation to recipients with the highest ac

22 We studied 80 living donors: 35 RL liver donors and 45 LL/LLS liver donors.

23 were measured intraoperatively in right lobe liver donors and recipients with electromagnetic flow pr

24 Given the shortage of liver donors and the development of techniques for parti

25 resonance imaging (MRI) in living right lobe liver donors and the recipients of these grafts.

26 n arterial graft procured from the cadaveric liver donor, and arterial patency was verified with intr

27 alized by bone marrow transplantation in the liver donor, and the lack of liver-derived antigen-prese

28 ives and decision making of potential living liver donors are critical areas for transplant clinician

29 alcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH]) and living liver donors as healthy controls (HC).

30 ns for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

31 Thus, we surveyed 77 prospective living liver donors at the point of donation evaluation using s

32 represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients.

33 rement records for 1013 consecutive deceased liver donors between 2001 and 2008 were reviewed.

34 The authors identified all living right-lobe liver donor candidates who underwent CT cholangiography

35 In living potential liver donors, CT cholangiography enables significantly b

36 well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the strongest

37 Mortality of live liver donors does not differ from that of healthy, match

38 ine prior to CT cholangiography in potential liver donors does not increase bile duct caliber or impr

39 Elderly liver donors (ELDs) represent a possible expansion of th

40 ective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 w

41 Hepatic bile was collected from eight liver donors (four with normal and four with steatotic g

42 Approximately 25% of liver donors have complications immediately postoperativ

43 Previous studies of healthy live-liver donors have suggested that complete liver regenera

44 ors (ALDs) aged 18-69 (n = 15,878) and ideal liver donors (ILDs) aged 18-39 (n = 6842).

45 ve mortality or acute liver failure for live liver donors in the United States and avoid selection or

46 We followed up 4111 live liver donors in the United States between April 1994 and

47 The risk of early death among live liver donors in the United States is 1.7 per 1000 donors

48 ming living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to comp

49 onsent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipien

50 With the growing shortage of available liver donors, many donors with risk factors that would h

51 Psychiatric assessment and monitoring of liver donors may help to understand and prevent such tra

52 Liver tissue was obtained from healthy liver donors (n = 5) and from patients with PSC (n = 20)

53 Liver donors (n=8) were 11-66 years old; half were >50 y

54 epatic steatosis, a common finding in living liver donors, not only influences the outcome of liver t

55 ty-specific data from 10,689 adult cadaveric liver donors obtained from the United Network for Organ

56 and may not constitute optimal use of scarce liver donor organs.

57 itigating I/R injury, and thus expanding the liver donor pool for clinical transplantation.

58 Increasing the liver donor pool, especially among minorities, will requ

59 e method of choice for expanding the cadaver liver donor pool.

60 method of choice for expanding the cadaveric liver donor pool.

61 e significantly underrepresented in the U.S. liver donor population.

62 In contrast, irradiation of the LEW liver donor prevented the spontaneous acceptance by DA r

63 Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short t

64 ck of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL).

65 We prospectively studied kidney and liver donor-recipient pairs to determine if donor viral

66 ime points were obtained from 6 HCV-positive liver donor/recipient pairs from the National Institute

67 nancy, body mass index, serum creatinine and liver donor risk index.

68 icit, incidence of female donors, kidney and liver donor risk indices, kidney cold ischemia, and infe

69 allele match between the recipient and their liver donor suggests that HLA class I-restricted mechani

70 there were more grade 2 complications in RL liver donors than in LL/LLS liver donors.

71 used to increase the pool of potential live liver donors that are currently excluded because of the

72 Eight different potential liver donors then underwent conventional MR cholangiogra

73 ter transplantation) in transplanted aortas (liver donor-type) harvested from animals in group III.

74 Eight living potential liver donors underwent iodipamide meglumine-enhanced CT

75 RL liver donors underwent longer surgeries and experienced

76 Thirty-six living liver donors underwent MRC, and subsequently right lobec

77 The LEW liver donor was treated by TBI (10 gray) 7 days before t

78 Long-term mortality of live liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donor

79 A review of 100 living-liver donors was performed to evaluate the perisurgical

80 To address this, live liver donors were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient

81 and foreign-born donors (P=0.001); 58.9% of liver donors were male (P=0.001).

82 -binding lectin (MBL2) gene polymorphisms of liver donors were significantly associated with bacteria

83 xtrahepatic biliary atresia and 11 controls (liver donors) were studied.

84 We report that although treatment of ACI liver donors with lethal irradiation does not lead to pr

85 rospective study, we evaluated 50 "marginal" liver donors with pre-procurement abdominal ultrasounds