ライフサイエンスコーパス: living @1 donor

1 e been developed to reduce morbidity for the living renal donor.

2 ucted a prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors.

3 n current psychosocial screening programs of living organ donors.

4 of the psychosocial evaluation for eligible living organ donors.

5 adient-echo MRA with surgical findings in 15 living renal donors.

6 ography and angiography in the assessment of living renal donors.

7 isparities in medical conditions occur among living kidney donors.

8 can lead to misclassification of many older living kidney donors.

9 to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

10 because of the short waiting time and use of living kidney donors.

11 lomerular filtration rate (GFR) in potential living kidney donors.

12 to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

13 of well-being and a boost in self-esteem for living kidney donors.

14 phy in determining renal vascular anatomy in living kidney donors.

15 ay predict long-term renal outcomes in white living kidney donors.

16 ant centers are opposed to using children as living kidney donors.

17 l cortex volume [RCV]) were performed in 101 living kidney donors.

18 perceptions of current voters toward paying living kidney donors.

19 ation rate, eGFR) of the remaining kidney in living kidney donors.

20 ow pilot studies of financial incentives for living kidney donors.

21 e, which might be alleviated by compensating living kidney donors.

22 rmed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors.

23 he relatively benign renal outcomes for most living kidney donors.

24 ample that is not representative of all U.S. living kidney donors.

25 tioning at 5 years as that of a graft from a living related donor.

26 fts were from a cadaver, and 14% were from a living-related donor.

27 ted, or nonhuman leukocyte antigen identical living-related donor.

28 similar concerns are important to potential living related donors.

29 We performed six SPKs from living-related donors.

30 d in recipients of 50% segmental grafts from living, related donors?

31 health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and yea

32 tabase linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from

33 Among 90 013 living kidney donors, 2001-2016, proportions who were ve

34 From a population of 3,698 living kidney donors, 257 donors were randomly selected

35 king for their views and practices regarding living kidney donors; 44% of these organizations respond

36 t the long-term outcomes of African American living kidney donors (AALKDs).

37 leukocyte antigen-mismatched, haploidentical living-related donors after modified nonmyeloablative co

38 most to the variation in willingness to be a living related donor, although race contributed most to

39 of APOL1 risk alleles among African American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for A

40 ey function is critical in the evaluation of living kidney donors and higher donor glomerular filtrat

41 Survey of previous directed living kidney donors and their recipients in a single Ca

42 (SEP) may influence hypothetical and actual living kidney donors and where appropriate, summarizes t

43 recipients of first kidney transplants (six living related donors and eight cadavers).

44 increased risk of ESRD has been reported for living kidney donors, and appears to be higher for those

45 to prevent acquisition of HIV by prospective living organ donors, and to conduct HIV antibody testing

46 rgans, 29 were ex vivo reduced size, 33 were living-related donor, and 36 were in situ split-liver al

47 ence up to 50%, an increased recurrence with living-related donors, and the rarity of graft loss due

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

49 Recent evidence suggests that living kidney donors are at an increased risk of end-sta

50 While cautious criteria for selection of living kidney donors are credited for favorable outcomes

51 Data regarding health outcomes among living kidney donors are lacking, especially among nonwh

52 The acceptance criteria used for living kidney donors are largely theoretical, as they ar

53 The motives and decision making of potential living liver donors are critical areas for transplant cl

54 been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known.

55 As cadaver and living unrelated donors are equally genetically disparat

56 or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH]) and living liver donors as healthy controls (HC).

57 Societal plight driving caution about living kidney donor assessment was emphasized in the con

58 We evaluated 1638 living kidney donors at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ sites) an

59 We identified 1388 living kidney donors at the Mayo Clinic and the Clevelan

60 Thus, we surveyed 77 prospective living liver donors at the point of donation evaluation

61 FR], urine protein, and microalbumin) in 148 living kidney donors before and 6 to 12 months after nep

62 One thousand six hundred sequential living kidney donor biopsies were performed between 2001

63 higher (P < 0.01) for cadaveric donor versus living related donor, blacks versus whites, age >12 vers

64 e called for more comprehensive follow-up of living kidney donors, both for the donor's benefit and t

65 increased 'hypothetical' willingness to be a living kidney donor but with marked heterogeneity in the

66 y cancer as the leading cause of death among living kidney donors, but information on the burden of c

67 Intestinal transplants from living-related donors can be lifesaving for selected pat

68 o conventional methods for evaluation of the living renal donor candidate.

69 s cost, discomfort, and inconvenience to the living renal donor candidate.

70 uation of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increas

71 EQ), designed to measure the expectations of living kidney donor candidates.

72 e the projected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance

73 rocure organs based on a document of gift (a living will, donor card, or driver's license).

74 Forty-two living kidney donors (Caucasian; 76% female [n=32]; 53 +

75 of partial or total nephrectomy in previous living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors.

76 lly and psychologically screened unspecified living kidney donors completed the Symptom Checklist bef

77 facilities for long-term costs generated by living kidney donors contributes to the problem was exam

78 ut how well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the str

79 and 116 nonobese (body mass index<27 kg/m2) living kidney donors donating at a single institution be

80 sis, we compare the outcomes of the first 60 living kidney donors enrolled in our enhanced recovery p

81 retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to

82 ribe transplant professional perspectives on living kidney donor evaluation in Asia.

83 ng research on individuals who withdraw from living kidney donor evaluation.

84 The first graft from a living-related donor failed and was followed by a second

85 genotyped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association

86 genotyped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association

87 nsplantation, the vast majority (81%) prefer living related donors for pediatric recipients.

88 frican American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African American recipients.

89 We report here on two cases in which the living-related donors for children with Alagille's syndr

90 y system of family members who are potential living-related donors for patients with this condition.

91 Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy

92 reimbursement from insurance providers for a living kidney donor from 47% to 85% of the amount billed

93 ansplantation Network registrations for 4650 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2007 with administrati

94 We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to t

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

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

97 The study population consisted of 3074 living kidney donors from 28 centers during 2004 and 200

98 Hemorrhagic deaths of living kidney donors from failure of vascular clips used

99 ospective study of 4650 persons who had been living kidney donors from October 1987 through July 2007

100 the first report of the successful use of a living-related donor graft for an orthotopic liver trans

101 The use of living-related donor grafts has produced excellent resul

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

103 wn "reduced" livers, split liver grafts, and living-related donors has provided more organs for pedia

104 Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket

105 se data show that attitudes toward unrelated living kidney donors have gradually become much more lib

106 Previous studies of living kidney donors have not specifically examined subs

107 In summary, hypertensive living kidney donors have similar outcome in terms of bl

108 The overall evidence suggests that living kidney donors have survival similar to that of no

109 Intestinal transplants using living-related donors have rarely been attempted, and th

110 perience, and demographic characteristics to living kidney donors' homes between 2010 and 2012.

111 No living kidney donor in our cohort received a partial or

112 ransplantation Network identifiers for 4,650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to admi

113 Transplantation Network identifiers for 4650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to admi

114 ation Network (OPTN) registry data for 4,007 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2008 with Medicare billi

115 We reviewed the predonation charts for all living kidney donors in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and

116 The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the d

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

118 with data on all African-American and white living kidney donors in the United States who were regis

119 ed the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personali

120 jections with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.

121 All living renal donors in the OPTN database were cross-chec

122 atients who received kidney transplants from living unrelated donors in the United States from 1995 t

123 entified to provide this follow-up of former living kidney donors, including concerns that donor insu

124 Of 105 volunteer, adult, potential living-renal donors interested in the laparoscopic appro

125 antation of the right lobe of a liver from a living adult donor into an adult recipient has been perf

126 We conducted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies

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

128 therapeutic options for patients whose only living kidney donor is ABO incompatible, with a specific

129 ng African American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed.

130 technique in the preoperative evaluation of living renal donors is accurate even when images are rea

131 We present a case of living, related-donor kidney transplantation during the

132 t and demographic characteristics with HL in living kidney donors (LD), living donor kidney transplan

133 s demonstrate that graft survival from older living kidney donors (LD; age>60 years) is worse than yo

134 nt may serve as a primary motivating factor, living kidney donors (LDs) also may expect to accrue som

135 Living-related donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an

136 Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD

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

138 performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted

139 In contrast, for living related donor (LRD) grafts there was no significa

140 ently, we make thorough attempts to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (

141 valuation of renal structure and function in living renal donor (LRD) candidates.

142 sies were obtained from cadaveric (n=23) and living-related donor (LRD) (n=10) liver transplants befo

143 , we embarked on a study of DBMC infusion in living-related donor (LRD) kidney transplant recipients.

144 ith concomitantly transplanted recipients of living-related donor (LRD) kidneys and donor marrow infu

145 A successful kidney transplant from a living-related donor (LRD) remains the most effective re

146 usion after transplantation of 13 CAD and 12 living-related donor (LRD) renal allografts were examine

147 ent of CAN in recipients of cadaveric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (

148 ymphocytes and iliac crest bone marrow of 11 living-related-donor (LRD) renal transplant recipients,

149 to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (LURD) before proceeding with a c

150 veric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (LURD) transplants at their cente

151 Living-unrelated donors (LURD) have been shown to yield

152 Preventing complications for living kidney donors must be paramount in addressing end

153 All surgeons operating on a living organ donor must select vascular control techniqu

154 Over 5,000 living kidney donor nephrectomies are performed annually

155 ectal surgery, splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures conside

156 on rectopexy), splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for mo

157 of a large group of obese (ObD) and nonobese living kidney donors (NObD).

158 Hepatic steatosis, a common finding in living liver donors, not only influences the outcome of

159 Carefully screened prediabetic living kidney donors often revert to normal fasting gluc

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

161 transplantation centers do not follow former living kidney donors on a long-term basis.

162 splant community needs to be watchful of the living unrelated donor operation.

163 ding how often and the reasons why potential living kidney donors opt out of the donor evaluation pro

164 Living related donor organs had a significantly better 5

165 Five consecutive living related donor pediatric renal transplants were re

166 se intensify the demand for expansion of the living-kidney-donor pool.

167 This article reviews aspects of the Living Unrelated Donor program and development of deceas

168 is a lack of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL).

169 allograft recipients with cadaveric (89%) or living (11%) donors received 2 mg of sirolimus (troughs>

170 living unrelated and two HLA haploidentical living-related donor recipient pairs, whereas unidirecti

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

172 through an exchange arrangement between two living kidney donor-recipient pairs.

173 ed a prospective analysis of 125 consecutive living kidney donor/recipient pairs.

174 ratios were higher in cadaveric donor versus living related donor recipients (15.7 + 2.8 vs. 8.8 + 1.

175 Whereas none of the HAT-treated living related donor recipients had a rejection episode,

176 f 16 (25%) living-related versus none of the living-unrelated donors' recipients recurred.

177 describe the experiences and expectations of living kidney donors regarding follow-up and self-care a

178 alia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry over 2004 to 2012.

179 Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual

180 re-donation obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney donors remains controversial.

181 ients of one haplotype matched recipients of living, related donor renal allografts selected to contr

182 These data suggest that living-related donor renal transplantation with steroid-

183 was conducted in recipients of cadaveric or living-related donor renal transplants.

184 gnificantly greater in cadaver compared with living kidney donors, respectively.

185 ents received whole livers, and two received living-related donor right liver lobes.

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

187 s a surrogate outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

188 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal wi

189 erance in clinical islet transplantation and living-related donor solid organ transplantation.

190 However, for living donors, donor source affects outcome.

191 ension or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in

192 For patients with a solitary kidney, such as living kidney donors, the surgical treatment of renal tu

193 Although AAs comprised 14.3% of all living kidney donors, they constituted 44% of donors rea

194 In the setting of multiple potential living kidney donors, this quantitative tool may facilit

195 outperformed the MDRD equation in potential living renal donors; this model could be used to estimat

196 erular structure should be derived only from living kidney donor tissues.

197 We enrolled 21 adult living kidney donors to undergo detailed long-term clini

198 ntrols with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by

199 th chronic kidney disease toward receiving a living kidney donor transplant.

200 ir contribution to the ethnic differences in living kidney donor transplantation have not been adequa

201 Living kidney donor transplantation, universally recogni

202 minority patients have lower probability of living kidney donor transplantation.

203 towards recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

204 atients and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

205 ts for recipients bolster public support for living kidney donor transplantation; however, ethical di

206 PD program has helped maintain the volume of living kidney donor transplants in Canada over the past

207 Thirty-six living liver donors underwent MRC, and subsequently righ

208 Thirty-five living renal donors underwent preoperative contrast mate

209 e risk profile of Australian and New Zealand living kidney donors using data from the Australia and N

210 kidney transplant results are improved with living unrelated donor utilization.

211 declining trend in acceptance of very obese living kidney donors, variation across centers is signif

212 vo disease according to the transplant type (living related donor vs. cadaver, P=NS).

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

214 A review of 100 living-liver donors was performed to evaluate the perisu

215 To reduce the morbidity of living kidney donors we introduced ketorolac-based analg

216 insurance companies currently view and treat living kidney donors, we mailed a survey to the medical

217 Thirty-eight living kidney donors were included.

218 find that most bills for follow-up visits of living kidney donors were paid by insurance companies, a

219 one haplotype-matched renal transplants from living related donors were studied to determine the asso

220 educed-size grafts, of which three were from living-related donors, were used.

221 age have focused on increasing the number of living organ donors, which in 2001 for the first time ex

222 Living kidney donors who felt well and confident about t

223 The records of 716 potential living renal donors who underwent conventional arteriogr

224 The number of living kidney donors with no preexisting relationship to

225 Potential living kidney donors with prediabetes are often excluded

226 hort-term and 1- and 5-year renal outcome of living kidney donors with preexistent hypertension.

227 t the greater magnitude of glomerulopenia in living kidney donors with preexisting hypertension justi

228 Living kidney donors with three separate risk factors (o

229 splants from HLA single-haplotype mismatched living related donors, with the use of a nonmyeloablativ