1 ction); 6 recipients died with a functioning
pancreas graft.
2 ienced immediate function of both kidney and
pancreas grafts.
3 uential in situ procurement of the liver and
pancreas grafts.
4 oven a sensitive tool in the surveillance of
pancreas grafts.
5 determine causes and risk factors for TF of
pancreas grafts.
6 Of the 20
pancreas grafts,
15 are functioning, 3 thrombosed, but 2
7 Of 61
pancreas grafts,
51 are currently functioning; in 7 reci
8 Of 75
pancreas grafts,
64 are currently functioning; in 5 reci
9 Of the 914
pancreas grafts,
643 (70.3%) continue to function (mean
10 Two
pancreas grafts (
7%) and one kidney graft (3%) were lost
11 d out safely with 5-year patient (87.5%) and
pancreas graft (
75.0%) survival.
12 In recipients of enterically drained
pancreas grafts,
a transcystoscopic biopsy cannot be don
13 Five patients who lost their
pancreas graft after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transp
14 aparoscopic biopsy of an enterically drained
pancreas graft,
after a percutaneous biopsy was unsucces
15 Only one
pancreas graft and one kidney graft were lost (in two di
16 Models for 1-year
pancreas graft and patient survival yielded C statistics
17 e analyzed based on geographic source of the
pancreas graft and the type of prospective crossmatch pe
18 comparing (1) locally procured and imported
pancreas grafts and (2) grafts procured by a team from o
19 performing well, with functioning kidney and
pancreas grafts and no evidence of recurrent PV intersti
20 Overall kidney graft,
pancreas graft,
and patient survival were compared.
21 management of IPMN and adenocarcinoma in the
pancreas graft appears congruent to that of the native p
22 11 patients are alive, and 10/11 kidney and
pancreas grafts are functioning with a mean follow-up of
23 Pancreas grafts are still associated with the highest su
24 Pancreas graft biopsies are now used routinely for the d
25 Until now, only three types of
pancreas graft biopsies have been described: percutaneou
26 Percutaneous
pancreas graft biopsy has been reported in a few small s
27 We conclude that laparoscopic
pancreas graft biopsy is a safe and effective method for
28 d over the last decade, more than 10% of all
pancreas grafts continue to be lost due to technical rea
29 the Y graft used to revascularize the whole
pancreas graft developed in 2 recipients of simultaneous
30 bA1c) levels are often obtained in potential
pancreas graft donors to assess the overall long-term fu
31 Edema of the
pancreas graft during rejection impairs capillary perfus
32 r ascent and diminished maximum intensity in
pancreas grafts during rejection, with significantly red
33 ld standard in the differential diagnosis of
pancreas graft dysfunction.
34 become another valuable tool for diagnosing
pancreas graft dysfunction.
35 emerged as a strong independent predictor of
pancreas graft failure (hazard ratio 4.66, p < 0.001).
36 mortality model, increased age (P<0.001) and
pancreas graft failure (P<0.001) were associated with an
37 .02), renal graft failure (RR 2.41; P=0.05),
pancreas graft failure (RR 3.66; P=0.01), and a trend to
38 Increased
pancreas graft failure after delayed endocrine function
39 Early
pancreas graft failure after simultaneous pancreas and k
40 There was no association between
pancreas graft failure and recipient or donor characteri
41 e was associated with a higher risk of early
pancreas graft failure at 3 months (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1
42 were associated with a higher risk of early
pancreas graft failure at 3 months.
43 Early
pancreas graft failure in SPK transplant recipients is a
44 ion of therapeutic interventions after early
pancreas graft failure is needed.
45 Pancreas graft failure occurred in 14 PAK and two PRT pa
46 We studied the impact of early
pancreas graft failure on long-term kidney and patient s
47 Early
pancreas graft failure was associated with lower subsequ
48 The variables significantly associated with
pancreas graft failure were transplant type (PTA vs. SPK
49 These findings were correlated with
pancreas graft failure within 1-year after surgery by us
50 nfection, rejection, readmission, kidney and
pancreas graft failure, and death) was examined with a C
51 D is not associated with increased long-term
pancreas graft failure.
52 85; P<0.001) among SPK recipients with early
pancreas graft failure.
53 (HR, 1.04; P = 0.024) were risk factors for
pancreas graft failure.
54 critical need to optimally use all available
pancreas grafts for transplantation.
55 The former received
pancreas grafts from 1- to 2-day-old BALB/c donors which
56 There were 22
pancreas grafts from donors over 45 years of age, 13 of
57 This study demonstrates that utilization of
pancreas grafts from selected, less-than-ideal donors re
58 The incidence of delayed endocrine
pancreas graft function and its impact on long-term outc
59 decrease the incidence of delayed endocrine
pancreas graft function and its negative impact on long-
60 Long-term
pancreas graft function is attainable and beta cell "exh
61 The incidence of delayed endocrine
pancreas graft function was 69%.
62 Delayed endocrine
pancreas graft function was defined as total, cumulative
63 In the 51 patients with sustained
pancreas graft function, kidney function (serum creatini
64 onor Cav1 genotype correlates with long-term
pancreas graft function.
65 iver graft is minimized without compromising
pancreas graft function.
66 ecipients without and with delayed endocrine
pancreas graft function.
67 Patient and primary cadaver
pancreas graft functional (insulin-independence) surviva
68 Pancreas grafts have vascular and enteric connections th
69 80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.03),
pancreas graft (
HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.00), or patient s
70 ear patient survival after loss of the first
pancreas graft is significantly better in patients who u
71 hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00-1.81),
pancreas graft loss (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.17-1.69), and k
72 (p = 0.02), fewer rejection episodes, and no
pancreas graft loss after 3 months in bone marrow recipi
73 Pancreas graft loss due to rejection decreased from 50%
74 Comparison of PPFCs with
pancreas graft loss to the PPFCs with surviving grafts s
75 eatic fistula was greater in the former (90%
pancreas graft loss vs. 42% pancreas graft survival, P<0
76 pancreatic fistula carry a greater risk for
pancreas graft loss.
77 ents, TF represents the most common cause of
pancreas graft loss.
78 ill become increasingly common as a cause of
pancreas graft loss.
79 es more than tripled the risk for kidney and
pancreas graft loss; therefore, new strategies are neede
80 Of the five
pancreas graft losses, two were due to infection, one im
81 suggest that DCD
pancreas grafts may have a larger application potential
82 sibility of applying these techniques to DCD
pancreas grafts not only for preservation but also for v
83 n had no significant impact on kidney graft,
pancreas graft,
or patient survival.
84 We compared early
pancreas graft outcomes at four pancreas transplant prog
85 easured, the impact of donor HbA1c levels on
pancreas graft outcomes has not been reported.
86 Pancreas-graft outcomes in SPK and PAK were equivalent i
87 Seventy-four consecutive
pancreas graft pancreatectomies were studied histologica
88 No
pancreas grafts preserved by the two-layer method suffer
89 ence suggests that portal venous drainage of
pancreas grafts prevents hyperinsulinemia and improves l
90 Laboratory parameters for detecting
pancreas graft rejection are not consistently reliable a
91 idered to be the gold standard in diagnosing
pancreas graft rejection, they are not performed routine
92 hnique of choice in recipients with presumed
pancreas graft rejection.
93 preservation of the recipient's life once a
pancreas graft-
related complication requiring relap occu
94 jured pancreata during preservation, improve
pancreas graft survival after transplantation, and impro
95 We found an inferior
pancreas graft survival and longer total transplant hosp
96 l, death-censored and technically successful
pancreas graft survival and rejection rates of each grou
97 Six-month patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survival and rejection rates were 97, 96,
98 Pancreas graft survival at 1 and 3 years was 94% and 82%
99 Pancreas graft survival at 1 year did not differ signifi
100 Overall
pancreas graft survival for our series was 83%, with a m
101 Actuarial
pancreas graft survival for SPK recipients at 1 and 5 ye
102 According to a matched-pair analysis,
pancreas graft survival for SPK recipients at 6 months w
103 SPK
pancreas graft survival has historically exceeded that o
104 Pancreas graft survival improved significantly over time
105 Five-year
pancreas graft survival improved to 80.3% (P = 0.026).
106 Pancreas graft survival in patients who simultaneously r
107 However, there was a trend toward improved
pancreas graft survival in the group receiving 4-5 doses
108 One year
pancreas graft survival in these patients was compared t
109 Long-term
pancreas graft survival is independent of donor body mas
110 The
pancreas graft survival rate at 1 year increased signifi
111 The 1-year
pancreas graft survival rate of 90.1% in technically suc
112 nical problems between 1979 and 1988 (5-year
pancreas graft survival rate, 29.7%), pancreas transplan
113 during the second decade (1989-1996; 5-year
pancreas graft survival rate, 42.2%).
114 were no differences in patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survival rates among the three groups.
115 One-year actuarial patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survival rates are 93, 93, and 90%, respe
116 Pancreas graft survival rates at 6 months were 90% for S
117 Three-year actuarial patient/
pancreas graft survival rates for SPK, PAK, and PTA were
118 One-year
pancreas graft survival rates in SPK and PAK recipients
119 For SPK recipients, 1-year
pancreas graft survival rates were 86% with MMF versus 7
120 Actual patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survival rates were 86%, 82%, and 82%, re
121 One- and 5-year
pancreas graft survival rates were 95.4% and 92.3%; loss
122 inimum 1 year), overall patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survival rates were 96%, 89%, and 90%, re
123 ombined for primary cadaver SPK transplants,
pancreas graft survival rates were significantly higher
124 atively high acute rejection rates and lower
pancreas graft survival rates when compared with the mor
125 Pancreas graft survival rates with primary cadaver trans
126 death with functioning grafts were censored,
pancreas graft survival remained significantly better in
127 rvival was similar between DCD and DBD, with
pancreas graft survival significantly better in the DCD
128 At 5 years, non-death-censored
pancreas graft survival was 75% and 82% among M and NM p
129 The actuarial 1-year
pancreas graft survival was 87% for the PAK group versus
130 Pancreas graft survival was 97%, and patient survival wa
131 Pancreas graft survival was influenced by left or right
132 ncreas-kidney transplants, the 1- and 3-year
pancreas graft survival was lower when the donor was age
133 Pancreas graft survival was similar for PAK and PRT at 1
134 Pancreas graft survival was similar in both groups, yet
135 One-year patient and death censored
pancreas graft survival were 93.8% and 94.8% for the ste
136 Covariates influencing
pancreas graft survival were analyzed using both univari
137 val rates at 1 year exceed 90%, and rates of
pancreas graft survival, 70%.
138 the former (90% pancreas graft loss vs. 42%
pancreas graft survival, P<0.01).
139 and recipient related risk factors influence
pancreas graft survival.
140 between donor HbA1c levels and postoperative
pancreas graft survival.
141 We compared patient, kidney graft, and
pancreas graft survival.
142 y has shown excellent results in patient and
pancreas graft survivals after 30 years of pancreas tran
143 p of 13.6+/-4.7 months, patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survivals are 100%, 100%, and 94%, respec
144 Three-year kidney and
pancreas graft survivals were 97% and 90%, respectively.
145 One-year patient, kidney, and
pancreas graft survivals were 97%, 94%, and 92%, respect
146 idney acute rejection (17.0% vs. 12.1%), and
pancreas graft thrombosis (2.6% vs. 1.3%).
147 inal infection and graft pancreatitis (38%),
pancreas graft thrombosis (27%), and anastomotic leak (1
148 Pancreas graft thrombosis is the most common cause of te
149 within the first 90 days largely related to
pancreas graft thrombosis.
150 ed a xenograft model of immature human fetal
pancreas grafted under the kidney capsule of immune-inco
151 vival, making it a viable method to increase
pancreas graft utilization across distant organ sharing
152 Mean warm ischemia time of the
pancreas graft was 34 min.
153 The
pancreas graft was lost after delivery (because of acute
154 The
pancreas graft was lost in 80% of recipients with versus
155 xperienced > or =1 rejection episode; only 1
pancreas graft was lost to rejection.
156 A single
pancreas graft was lost to thrombosis.
157 on, we tested whether rejection of Lewis rat
pancreas grafts was T-cell dependent and could be preven
158 Twenty of 25 patients with a transplant
pancreas graft were alive at 6-months posttransplant.
159 NOD/scid and NOD/CIIT
pancreas grafts were acutely destroyed whereas four of s
160 All
pancreas grafts were drained enterically.
161 In addition, second Lewis rat
pancreas grafts were hyperacutely rejected by presensiti
162 Five kidney and five
pancreas grafts were lost, including five deaths with fu
163 Sixty-three CT-guided core biopsies of 42
pancreas grafts were performed with 18-gauge needles ove
164 ely destroyed whereas four of six NOD/beta2m
pancreas grafts were permanently accepted in autoimmune
165 Lewis rat
pancreas grafts were rejected within 10 to 13 days, with
166 ed by a T-cell dependent response, Lewis rat
pancreas grafts were transplanted into streptozotocin (S
167 Moreover, patients receiving only
pancreas grafts will not have a concomitantly grafted ki
168 Of those, 470 had lost
pancreas graft within the first 90 days largely related