ライフサイエンスコーパス: living donor

1 unrelated and unknown patient ("unspecified living donors").

2 /- 13 years, 55% male, 93% Caucasian and 82% living donor).

3 has proven successful when performed with a living donor.

4 gnificantly associated with the absence of a living donor.

5 s with alloantibodies against their intended living donor.

6 ferences between patients with and without a living donor.

7 nsplantation was demonstrated in 2014 with a living donor.

8 ver disease scores and receiving a LT from a living donor.

9 on for renal outcomes among African American living donors.

10 n about the long-term glomerular dynamics in living donors.

11 tion and policies to prevent exploitation of living donors.

12 hile safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

13 sease patients with willing but incompatible living donors.

14 number of organs available from deceased and living donors.

15 enal transplant candidates with incompatible living donors.

16 with deceased donors rather than altruistic living donors.

17 cell types that are difficult to obtain from living donors.

18 fts from BD donors compared with grafts from living donors.

19 ions for protecting the health and safety of living donors.

20 rapidly expanding to increase the number of living donors.

21 of grafts from deceased donors compared with living donors.

22 de recommendations to promote the welfare of living donors.

23 an equivalent type and number of prospective living donors.

24 pede kidney transplantation, especially from living donors.

25 stdonation outcomes in 46 segmental pancreas living donors.

26 and receipt of a kidney from a deceased (vs. living) donor.

27 ing human heart biopsies from BD and domino (living) donors.

28 Among 4650 living donors, 13.1% were African American and 76.3% wer

29 From July 2006 to December 2011, 207 HS (56 living donors/151 deceased donors) patients (donor-speci

30 ving and deceased donor recipient 1-year and living donor 3-year Cox models that included all seven c

31 ving and deceased donor recipient 1-year and living donor 3-year Cox models that included all seven c

32 st and second kidney transplants-1021 with a living donor, 532 with a deceased donor-under our RDP pr

33 One thousand four hundred twenty living-donor ABO-incompatible kidney transplants were an

34 of any form of preconditioning therapies in living donor ABOi kidney transplantation on graft and pa

35 studies that described the outcomes of adult living donor ABOi kidney transplantations using any form

36 Disease-based allocation, split, domino, and living-donor adult and pediatric transplantations are no

37 cipient but also affects the recovery of the living donor after partial hepatectomy.

38 eceased-donor second grafts, similarly after living-donor (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83; P<0.001) and

39 y single parathyroidectomy is performed on a living donor also donating a kidney to her sibling.

40 nducted two separate randomized trials of 38 living donor and 90 deceased donor adult, primary kidney

41 he first 3 months of treatment compared with living donor and expanded criteria donor recipients.

42 This was confirmed in subgroup analyses for living donor and pediatric transplantation and cases wit

43 Partial LT (living donor and split liver transplantation) techniques

44 f DNA from kidney graft recipients and their living donors and estimated all possible cell surface an

45 hin the range of healthy individuals in both living donors and potential donors.

46 Participation of compatible living donors and recipients in kidney paired donation (

47 Close follow up of both living donors and transplant recipients is necessary to

48 ce of preference for type of KT (deceased or living donor) and transplant center location on days to

49 n to the risk of sensitization, aging of the living donor, and deceased-donor waiting times.

50 ing graft survival rates for deceased donor, living donor, and donation after circulatory death liver

51 cyte antigen antibodies, cold ischemia time, living donor, and preemptive transplantation.

52 ged to consider expanded criteria donors and living donors, as alternatives to deceased standard crit

53 patients for living donor LT with potential living donor at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital w

54 Living donors, because they are typically young and have

55 fusion in clinical kidney transplantation in living donor, brain-dead donor, and cardiac dead donor k

56 7 renal transplantations were performed from living donors by a single surgical unit.

57 Given a set of candidate and living donor characteristics, the Markov model provides

58 measured outcomes in grafts from both BD and living donors compared with controls.

59 Among 207 of 222 eligible living donors contacted, 86 (42%) completed the anonymou

60 ger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants.

61 Medically complex living donors demonstrate similar compensatory increase

62 Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and

63 d a comprehensive set of recommendations for living donor evaluation, with three recommendations rega

64 ends in donor acceptance, the Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation (RELIVE) Study evaluated 8,951

65 re, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary by deceased don

66 patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first strategy was recommended.

67 gh U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donati

68 s similar in the circumstance of a 0-1 DR MM living donor following a deceased donor, and the convers

69 th the likelihood of identifying a potential living donor for LDKT.

70 for kidney is 84% (DBD), 87% (DCD), and 92% (living donor), for simultaneous kidney and pancreas 72%,

71 ipient with priority in being matched with a living donor from the end of a future transplantation ch

72 lament sutures in an interrupted fashion for living donor graft recipients and for pediatric patients

73 Younger age, living donor graft, and chronic glomerulonephritis were

74 ansplantation does not negatively impact the living-donor graft survival advantage and provides simil

75 Living donor grafts and multiple biliary anastomoses wer

76 ated the use of partial grafts, particularly living donor grafts, with a higher incidence of BCs.

77 living donors underwent transplantation with living-donor grafts at the end of these chains.

78 Living-donor grafts had longer survival compared with de

79 Survival patterns for living-donor grafts were similar as those seen for DD gr

80 surgical techniques to procure kidneys from living donors has allowed expansion of living donor rena

81 ng-term effects of unilateral nephrectomy on living donors have been important considerations for 60

82 -6.52; P = 0.010), and receiving a LT from a living donor (hazards ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interv

83 aiting list, we selected crossmatch positive living donor HLAi kidney transplant recipients who recei

84 eceased-donor-first followed if necessary by living donor (if still able to donate) or deceased donor

85 tudy, we report the results obtained from 70 living donors in France.

86 PKD, and confirms that the reluctance to use living donors in some primary glomerulonephritides remai

87 ), and entrenched inequities (exclusivity of living donors, inherently advantaging self-advocates, na

88 other, how to ensure that the consent of the living donor is voluntary and informed, the case of iden

89 Healthy living donor kidney biopsies served as controls.

90 nce protocol in HLA-mismatched recipients of living donor kidney plus facilitating cell enriched hema

91 y recipients, correlation was stronger among living donor kidney recipients.

92 Increase in living donor kidney transplant and use of marginal organ

93 , cyclophosphamide, 200 cGy TBI), received a living donor kidney transplant on day 0, then infusion o

94 istics with HL in living kidney donors (LD), living donor kidney transplant recipients (LDR), and dec

95 rgan Sharing registry was reviewed for adult living donor kidney transplant recipients with BMI of 40

96 .01) ml/min per 1.73 m(2) among deceased and living donor kidney transplant recipients, respectively.

97 eased donor kidney transplant, but rates for living donor kidney transplant were higher.

98 socioeconomic variables less often receive a living donor kidney transplant, their survival may be un

99 e past decade in rates of preKT, focusing on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and specifica

100 The presence of sex disparity in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) remains contr

101 ion (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

102 This was not true for living donor kidney transplantation (mortality HR: 0.94,

103 Studies of racial disparities in access to living donor kidney transplantation focus mainly on pati

104 reted and their influence on the practice of living donor kidney transplantation.

105 previous total gastrectomy was evaluated for living donor kidney transplantation.

106 ics/Latinos receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) than non-Hi

107 in recipients of HLA-matched and mismatched living donor kidney transplants in 3 medical centers usi

108 study of nonsensitized primary recipients of living donor kidney transplants.

109 sibly due in part to decreases in numbers of living donor kidney transplants.

110 of chain ending kidneys, and the value of a living donor kidney versus a deceased donor kidney.

111 mortality was observed with the receipt of a living-donor kidney for recipients aged 70 and above.

112 od analysis to first deceased-donor (DD) and living-donor kidney grafts from the United Network for O

113 censored graft failure of a 2-2-2 mismatched living-donor kidney is comparable with that of a 0-0-0 m

114 red clinical outcomes of 34 ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney recipients who were transplanted usi

115 ggest that recipients of an ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney transplant after reduction of ABO an

116 Living-donor kidney transplantation (KT) is encouraged f

117 Since the first living-donor kidney transplantation in 1954, more than h

118 t survival holds true for both deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation.

119 e-to-HIV-positive liver transplantations and living-donor kidney transplantations are also now on the

120 llance biopsies and the clinical outcomes in living-donor kidney transplantations performed between M

121 opulation of recipients of deceased-donor or living-donor kidney transplantations.

122 ed a significant inequality in the number of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) performed between

123 (KPD) strategies have facilitated compatible living-donor kidney transplants for end-stage renal dise

124 Living-donor kidney transplants from ABO-incompatible do

125 Recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) living-donor kidney transplants often undergo more inten

126 data from a large series of ABO-incompatible living-donor kidney transplants performed at 101 centers

127 a deceased-donor kidney and 1007 received a living-donor kidney.

128 cells lining proximal convoluted tubules of living donor kidneys (LDKs) procured by laparoscopic pro

129 Overall, 66.3% of living donor kidneys and 50.7% of deceased donor kidneys

130 xperience with retrograde flushing (RF) of 7 living donor kidneys via the renal vein.

131 as no release of soluble C5b-9 (sC5b-9) from living donor kidneys, nor was there a release of C5a.

132 donor kidneys were inferior to outcomes with living donor kidneys.

133 Compared to recipients of living-donor kidneys, recipients of expanded criteria de

134 The adjusted HRs for living donor KT were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.24-0.51), 0.27 (95%

135 primarily driven by differences in access to living donor KT.

136 This inequity is very substantial for living donor KT.

137 similar cumulative graft life compared with living-donor KT followed by deceased-donor retransplanta

138 ere has been a steady decrease in the use of living-donor KT for pediatric recipients.

139 operated the only government-sponsored paid living donor (LD) kidney transplant program.

140 Living donor (LD) kidney transplantation accounts for ar

141 e and compared outcomes to standard (SL) and living donor (LD) livers.

142 In contrast, low and intermediate risk living donor (LD) recipients had an immediate survival a

143 o DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor (LD) transplants, analyzing 3-year patient

144 t from a DD 5 years old or younger or from a living donor (LD).

145 concern that children receiving kidneys from living donors (LD) have increased recurrence risk.

146 anges in angiopoeitins are assessed in human living-donor (LD) and deceased-donor (DD) kidney transpl

147 ith transplantation of a kidney-alone from a living donor (LDK).

148 superior long-term survival of kidneys from living donors (LDs) compared with kidneys from donation-

149 kidneys from 72 deceased donors (DDs) and 18 living donors (LDs).

150 Twelve pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver grafts, identified as operationally t

151 Twelve pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver grafts, identified as operationally t

152 Portal vein (PV) complications after living donor liver transplant (LDLT) have been a major c

153 The average hospital days of a pediatric living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipient was 65.48

154 Recipients of 274 living donor liver transplant were enrolled in the Adult

155 BO-incompatible (ABOi) dual-graft (DG) adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is not common

156 Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has often been

157 /UNOS) data from 2002-2012 to assess whether living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has surpassed

158 ume, outcomes, uniqueness, and challenges of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Latin Ameri

159 opic approach in right hepatectomy (LRH) for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a controver

160 The data about elderly recipient after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unsatisfact

161 Centers offering adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) mostly use rig

162 th hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or brain-dead

163 can be used to predict HCC recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

164 was higher than that for the recipients with living donor liver transplantation (P < 0.001).

165 ords of donors and recipients, who underwent living donor liver transplantation at our institution be

166 HCV-infected patients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL)

167 The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a pro

168 A principal aim of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study was to s

169 ts (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who rece

170 ansplant were enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, includi

171 Living donor liver transplantation is mainly restricted

172 Balancing donor and recipient risks in living donor liver transplantation remains an issue of d

173 Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical

174 itish Transplantation Society Guidelines for Living Donor Liver Transplantation was published in July

175 d PVP is associated with liver failure after living donor liver transplantation, we hypothesized that

176 that contribute to biliary complications in living donor liver transplantation.

177 ion were examined and compared with those of living donor liver transplantation.

178 s, the results were comparable with those of living donor liver transplantation.

179 ating to the advantages and disadvantages of living donor liver transplantation.

180 the first national guideline in the field of living donor liver transplantation.

181 Living donor liver transplants and segmental grafts from

182 Of the study participants, 594 had living donor liver transplants.

183 Of 69 segmental transplants, 47 were living donor liver transplants: 13 grafts (27.7%) were r

184 Preoperative evaluation of donors for living-donor liver transplantation aims to select a suit

185 Adult living-donor liver transplantation recipients undergo im

186 d a hemodynamic monitoring protocol in adult living-donor liver transplantation recipients, which eva

187 ished by liver transplantation, we performed living donor-liver transplantation in an infant with eth

188 r pediatric recipients of deceased donor and living donor livers.

189 igned to compare, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary b

190 tion has been described, but pregnancy after living donor lobar lung transplantation (LDLT) has not b

191 risk of advanced fibrosis was 44% and 37% in living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) pati

192 ve study (1995 to 2015) of primary pediatric living donor LT (LDLT).

193 Patients with previous LT, living donor LT and patients dying or requiring retransp

194 1, eighty-eight consecutive HCV patients for living donor LT with potential living donor at Kaohsiung

195 r age, poor functional status (KPS 10%-40%), living donor LT, pre-LT hemodialysis, and the donor risk

196 specimens collected from 2005 to 2009 after living donor (n=427) or deceased donor (n=548) renal tra

197 early DKD (n = 70) when compared with normal living donors (n = 32).

198 Organs from living donors (n = 76,015), all organs with missing card

199 A consecutive sample of living donors (n=40) was compared with a sample of poten

200 g); SCDKT (n=283); pediatric en bloc (n=21), living-donor (n=275), and extended criteria-donor (n=100

201 D4 T cells underwent deceased-donor (n=8) or living-donor (n=3) kidney transplantation at our center.

202 Between 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2014, we did 2002 living donor nephrectomies.

203 All living-donor nephrectomies were performed by retroperito

204 ral complications of renal transplants after living donor nephrectomy are uncommon.

205 splantation after hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy at our institution from January

206 Among 480 renal transplantations after living donor nephrectomy, ureteral complications occurre

207 tors for ureteral complications solely after living donor nephrectomy.

208 LKT after living-donor nephrectomy is feasible, but it has steep l

209 splantation (LKT) after retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy.

210 The effect of preexisting hypertension on living donor nephron number has not been established.

211 nts after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasing

212 increased utilization of kidneys from older living donors (OLD).

213 We examined the incidence of living donor or deceased donor preemptive transplantatio

214 luate and compare the pros and cons of using living donors or brain-dead donors in uterus transplanta

215 liver transplantation, with either potential living donors or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease upgra

216 , 22.5 years) received segmental grafts from living donors or split/reduced-size grafts from deceased

217 Increasingly, screening of both deceased and living donor organs has led to the early detection of ki

218 Key areas covered by presentations included living donor outcomes, organ preservation, optimal alloc

219 development, leading to ineligibility of the living donor over time.

220 was associated with concerns about finding a living donor (P = 0.038) and higher perceived general kn

221 V-6 infection were receiving an organ from a living donor (P=0.028), recipients with IgM antibodies d

222 Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatmen

223 If possible, living donor pediatric kidney transplants should be perf

224 At T1, living donors' physical QOL was impaired.

225 Stones can be pretreated in the (living) donor prior to transplantation, managed at the t

226 ey transplantation among elderly recipients, living-donor rates decrease with increasing recipient ag

227 We investigated 214 living donor-recipient pairs.

228 expected graft losses increased by >30% for living donor recipients at 1 and 3 years and decreased b

229 expected graft losses increased by >30% for living donor recipients at 1 and 3 years and decreased b

230 fidence interval [95% CI], 0.31 to 0.67) for living donor recipients, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59) for

231 th expanded criteria, standard criteria, and living donor recipients, and secondary outcomes included

232 For living donor recipients, the actuarial 15-year PS rates

233 ded criteria, 642 standard criteria, and 673 living donor recipients.

234 Anastomotic TRAS developed in living donor recipients; postanastomotic TRAS (TRAS-P) d

235 or transplantation in candidates with only 1 living donor remains unclear.

236 Prograde flushing (PF) of living donor renal allografts with preservation solution

237 Fifteen human leukocyte antigen-mismatched living donor renal transplant recipients underwent low-i

238 ST) in tolerance induction and sustenance in living donor renal transplantation (LDRT).

239 from living donors has allowed expansion of living donor renal transplantation to account for one th

240 Retrospective review of 7 consecutive living donor renal transplants performed using the RF te

241 The 7 preceding living donor renal transplants performed using the stand

242 e with outcomes after deceased donor but not living donor renal transplants, thus donor death and org

243 ft survival in pediatric patients undergoing living-donor renal transplantation.

244 18 years old) patients who underwent primary living-donor renal transplantation.

245 ins the main cause of renal graft loss after living-donor renal transplantation.

246 donor KT in pediatric recipients followed by living-donor retransplantation does not negatively impac

247 al rates than remaining on dialysis, whereas living donor RT is superior to all other options.

248 five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure.

249 Living-donor second grafts had longer survival compared

250 Living donor segmental pancreas transplants (LDSPTx) hav

251 Nonrelated living donors should be preferred.

252 for pediatric patients with healthy, willing living donors should consider these findings in addition

253 s to improve the counseling and selection of living donors should focus on developing tools for tailo

254 e association between different donor types (living donor, standard, and expanded criteria deceased d

255 per 100,000 patient-years for recipients of living donor, standard, and expanded criteria deceased d

256 Compared with a brain-dead donor strategy, a living donor strategy offers greater possibilities for p

257 ion of whether ethically minors can serve as living donors, the health risks of living donation, the

258 y-stone free prior to transplantation and in living donors this means without subjecting the living d

259 ing donors this means without subjecting the living donor to an additional stone removing procedure.

260 on-Western descent (11 of 82) that brought a living donor to the outpatient clinic than patients of W

261 ing 373 patients and enabling others without living donors to advance outweigh the risk of broken cha

262 We enrolled 51 living donors to undergo physiologic, morphometric, and

263 (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = 0.01), and living donor transplant (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P

264 Obese children had lower odds of receiving a living donor transplant (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74

265 ation is an important modality to facilitate living donor transplant for incompatible pairs.

266 Outcomes were deceased or living donor transplant, death or removal from the list

267 ransplantation were comparable with those of living donor transplantation (P = 0.489).

268 s' decisions about recipient suitability for living donor transplantation aimed to achieve optimal re

269 orating previously reported experiences from living donor transplantation and recent developments in

270 suggest that racial disparities in access to living donor transplantation are likely due to socioecon

271 st advantageous use of deceased donor versus living donor transplantation for pediatric recipients.

272 geous timing strategy regarding deceased and living donor transplantation in candidates with only 1 l

273 tibody to perform an HLA-incompatible (HLAi) living donor transplantation is perceived to be high ris

274 tious risk donors, (iii) wait time, and (iv) living donor transplantation.

275 Anonymity of donors or recipients in living-donor transplantation is a complex issue and prac

276 egardless of the order of deceased-donor and living-donor transplantation.

277 n shortage has driven widespread adoption of living-donor transplantation.

278 enefit was 62% versus 70% in deceased versus living donor transplanted patients.

279 that the survival rate of HLA poorly matched living donor transplants is not inferior to that of HLA

280 g on kidney graft survival in 3627 pediatric living donor transplants performed during 2000 to 2015 u

281 with their donors may increase the number of living donor transplants.

282 observed for HLA-DRB1 in deceased donor and living donor transplants.

283 the recent rise in the number of unspecified living-donor transplants and through paired exchange sch

284 te, risk-adjusted analyses with a subset for living-donor transplants, pediatric transplants and case

285 transplantation, the favorable influence of living donor type is of paramount importance.

286 Even 66 patients on the wait list without living donors underwent transplantation with living-dono

287 of the number of adult LDLT and the rate of living donor utilization in comparison with other contin

288 -level median household income of all 71,882 living donors was determined by linkage to the 2000 US C

289 mong kidney transplant recipients from older living donors was similar to or better than SCD recipien

290 ns pertains mostly to deceased as opposed to living donors, we aimed to assess the risk factors for u

291 val rates of transplants from poorly matched living donors were compared with those from well-matched

292 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam

293 ntial elements in psychosocial evaluation of living donors which can serve as a uniform basis for the

294 ion regarding the psychologic functioning of living donors who donate their kidney to an unrelated an

295 icle calls for further research on potential living donors who opt out of donation.

296 impossible to sustain prohibitions on paying living donors, who are at risk.

297 one-third of transplanted kidneys come from living donors, who sacrifice approximately 30% of their

298 compares favorably with that of grafts from living donors with 4 to 6 HLA mismatches.

299 graft survival of pediatric transplants from living donors with 4 to 6 HLA-A+B+DR mismatches was sign

300 Grafts can be obtained from deceased or living donors, with different logistical requirements an