ライフサイエンスコーパス: panel-reactive antibody

1 llocation was evaluated through a calculated panel reactive antibody.

2 with KTA regardless of level of preoperative panel reactive antibody.

3 nd 2.3 (P = 0.006) when controlling for high panel-reactive antibody.

4 age, previous transplantation, and elevated panel-reactive antibody.

5 lass II antibodies were monitored using flow panel reactive antibodies.

6 capillary injury syndrome in the absence of panel-reactive antibodies.

7 recipients, and/or those with high titer of panel-reactive antibodies.

8 The proportion of recipients with calculated panel-reactive antibody =100 increased from 1.0% to 10.3

9 .0001), rejection (P<0.0001), and transplant panel reactive antibody 20% or more (P=0.03) were risk f

10 el-reactive antibodies > 70%, n= 7; moderate panel-reactive antibodies 30-40%, n=2) were analyzed.

11 significantly better in nonsensitized (<20% panel reactive antibodies; 68% vs. 55%; P<0.0005) but no

12 usting for age, race, donor status, and peak panel-reactive antibody, a discharge tacrolimus trough c

13 icity, original disease, maximum and current panel reactive antibodies, ABO blood type, retransplants

14 d no significant difference in pretransplant panel reactive antibodies, acute rejection at 1-year nor

15 ols and to waitlist-only matched controls on panel reactive antibody, age, blood group, renal replace

16 ody level, measured by an antihuman globulin panel reactive antibody (AHG PRA) level, in 90 unsensiti

17 Antidonor HLA antibody was sought by panel-reactive antibody analysis and/or donor cross matc

18 ossmatches based on different combination of panel reactive antibodies and crossmatch techniques vari

19 Calculated panel reactive antibody and a positive flow cytometry cr

20 We also reviewed whether pretransplant panel reactive antibody and donor-specific antibody affe

21 In this group, mean peak panel reactive antibody and MFI at transplant were 51% +

22 Organ Sharing new guidelines for calculated panel reactive antibody and virtual XM analysis.

23 first transplant, the patient's serum had 0% panel reactive antibody and was crossmatch compatible wi

24 Testing included the historically highest panel-reactive antibody and the immediate (0-7 days) pre

25 match, donor-specific antibody, and elevated panel reactive antibody) and demonstrated some benefits

26 recipient age, body mass index, sex, current panel reactive antibodies, and waiting time.

27 mographics, donor source, retransplantation, panel reactive antibody, and human leukocyte antigen mis

28 ants, prolonged cold ischemia time, elevated panel reactive antibody, and recurrent disease were iden

29 c versus living donor, 48-hr graft function, panel reactive antibody, and total HLA mismatches or mat

30 matched in terms of race, HCV co-infection, panel reactive antibody, and wait time except HIV + were

31 ration of end-stage renal disease and higher panel reactive antibody, and was less likely to receive

32 ender, race, HLA mismatch, time on dialysis, panel-reactive antibodies, and cold and warm ischemia ti

33 Gender, peak panel-reactive antibody, and ABO blood type were not fou

34 Panel reactive antibodies at the time of transplant were

35 e stratified by age, race, creatinine level, panel-reactive antibody at listing, and blood group.

36 original intended donor, and the calculated panel-reactive antibodies based on MFI of 2000, 4000, an

37 ss, particularly in patients with detectable panel-reactive antibody before second transplant (hazard

38 ys, 3 developed an extremely elevated (>90%) panel reactive antibody by ELISA that was not confirmed

39 However, the panel reactive antibodies correlated with the number of

40 ansplantations including 10% with Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) >/=97%.

41 dney transplant candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) greater than 50% and on t

42 ents whose median flow cytometric calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) was 100% and mean wait-li

43 n Sharing database generating the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA).

44 Having a calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) of 80% or greater was ind

45 elopment of a numeric metric, the calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) that predicts the likelih

46 Changes in antibody levels and calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) were compared using chi a

47 conferring priority points for a calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA)>19%, broader sharing of k

48 In 31 transplant candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA], 34%-99%), desensitizatio

49 two groups in regards to age, gender, race, panel reactive antibodies, degree of mismatch, donor age

50 ffect modifiers, including public insurance, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, and ste

51 es, such as age, gender, race, HLA mismatch, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, cold is

52 ictors were age, sex, blood type, calculated panel-reactive antibodies, donation service area, dialys

53 es of transplantation, previous transplants, panel reactive antibodies, donor specific antibody, cros

54 itoring, human leukocyte antigen typing, and panel reactive antibody except in a few tertiary care ce

55 The use of flow cytometry based panel reactive antibody (flow-PRA) provides a highly sen

56 unacceptable antigens lowered the calculated panel reactive antibody for 90 patients, sometimes drama

57 American, three patients had a pretransplant panel reactive antibody greater than 20%, and the human

58 similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups

59 similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups

60 on dialysis before waitlisting, tobacco use, panel-reactive antibody greater than 0, public insurance

61 etransplant recipient, or a recipient with a panel-reactive antibody greater than 50%.

62 ransplant, and 35% of these had a calculated panel-reactive antibody greater than 90%.

63 For the most highly sensitized patients (panel reactive antibody > 80%), a deceased-donor-first s

64 epeat transplant, African American race, and panel reactive antibody > or =20%) from July 2004 to Jul

65 ator dependence, higher blood urea nitrogen, panel reactive antibody >10%, and lower body surface are

66 diomyopathy, higher blood urea nitrogen, and panel reactive antibody >10%.

67 itional risk factors for DGF (odds ratio for panel reactive antibody >10%: 1.17, confidence interval

68 th varying levels of HLA sensitization (high panel-reactive antibodies > 70%, n= 7; moderate panel-re

69 study cohort into high-risk (age > 60 years, panel-reactive antibody > 20%, African American race, Ki

70 t failure in those ages >/=65 years included panel-reactive antibody >10%, congestive heart failure (

71 The percent of patients with peak panel-reactive antibody >50% was higher for American Ind

72 d 21 high immunological risk patients (i.e., panel reactive antibody>20% or previous transplant).

73 r criteria, delayed graft function, elevated panel reactive antibody, higher human leukocyte antigen

74 icantly influenced by recipient age, maximum panel reactive antibodies, HLA mismatches, donor type, d

75 transplant-related factors (transplant era, panel reactive antibodies, human leukocyte antigens mism

76 Median calculated panel-reactive antibody in registered recipients was 83%

77 Mean % panel reactive antibody increased from 6% to 45% for ret

78 l disease, history of a previous transplant, panel reactive antibodies less than 80%, dialysis depend

79 20 kg, children, liver-inclusive allograft, panel reactive antibody less than 20%, absence of donor-

80 ive high-risk cadaver transplant recipients (panel reactive antibody level >30%, repeat transplant re

81 oing retransplantation, and six (8.7%) had a panel reactive antibody level of 40% or higher.

82 an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level.

83 mic cardiomyopathy (54%) and a pretransplant panel-reactive antibody level of <10% (93%).

84 The mean panel-reactive antibody level was 44+/-30% after the sec

85 sitized patients (with a mean [+/-SD] T-cell panel-reactive antibody level, determined by use of the

86 ses accounting for recipient age, sex, race, panel-reactive antibody level, HLA match, cold ischemia

87 anted by paired donation, 44% had calculated panel reactive antibody levels greater than 80%.

88 any demographic variables, serum creatinine, panel reactive antibody levels, donor-specific antibody

89 Pretransplant panel reactive antibody levels, pregnancy, number of blo

90 city of the recipient, and presensitization (panel-reactive antibody levels > or = 20%) were signific

91 lantations, and 6 (7%) were in patients with panel-reactive antibody levels over 40%.

92 We recorded rates of transplantation, panel-reactive antibody levels, cross-matching results a

93 as advantageous, but for all other patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first str

94 confirmed these associations and identified panel reactive antibody more than 10% and low center vol

95 %), pretransplant transfusion (75% vs. 34%), panel reactive antibody more than 20% (56% vs. 14%), and

96 djusted graft failure risks in patients with panel reactive antibody more than 20% (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1

97 who received repeat transplants (85%) or had panel reactive antibody more than 40% (19%) and were mai

98 univariate analyses were retransplantation, panel-reactive antibody more than 0%, cytomegalovirus D+

99 erican race (68%), retransplants (12%), peak panel reactive antibody of atleast 20% (19%), expanded c

100 the kidneys transplanted in patients with a panel reactive antibody of more than 80% were from 0-MM

101 epeat transplant, a peak or current value of panel-reactive antibodies of 20% or more, or black race.

102 ease, 0.72 [0.54-0.96]) along with a maximum panel-reactive antibody of more than 10% (3.80 [1.73-8.3

103 acute rejection (OR 2.5, P = 0.03) and high panel-reactive antibody (OR 3.4, P = 0.006), However, th

104 ants (P=0.0001), acute rejection (P=0.0001), panel reactive antibody (P=0.0001), discharge creatinine

105 splants, nonprivate insurance, and increased panel reactive antibody percent.

106 > or = 40%; ROP tray negative; D, 0-B,Dr-MM; panel reactive antibodies (PRA) <40%; E, 0-B,Dr payback;

107 recipient and donor demographics, cytotoxic panel reactive antibodies (PRA) against T-cell targets a

108 g islet transplantation was detected by FLOW panel reactive antibodies (PRA) and donor-specific cellu

109 n was found between the degree of anti-human panel reactive antibodies (PRA) and xenoreactivity again

110 High levels of pretransplant panel reactive antibodies (PRA) are known to be associat

111 Panel reactive antibodies (PRA) were determined using Fl

112 splant recipients includes the assessment of panel reactive antibodies (PRA).

113 lantation (HT) often have elevated levels of panel reactive antibodies (PRA).

114 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-7.9), panel reactive antibody (PRA) > 20% (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-

115 Historically, panel reactive antibody (PRA) analysis to detect HLA ant

116 Panel reactive antibody (PRA) analysis was performed on

117 analyzed a subset of 119 patients with a low panel reactive antibody (PRA) before transplantation and

118 n both donor and recipient and pretransplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) data.

119 The primary outcome was change in panel reactive antibody (PRA) from prior to recipient's

120 s compared with zero haplotype mismatch, and panel reactive antibody (PRA) greater than 30%.

121 We defined sensitization as panel reactive antibody (PRA) more than 10% or a positiv

122 659 transplants (5.5%) were in-patients with panel reactive antibody (PRA) more than or equal to 80%.

123 oat antihuman immunoglobulin-enhanced T-cell panel reactive antibody (PRA) of >or=10% were considered

124 -specific antibodies and four an increase in panel reactive antibody (PRA) of at least 20% (P=0.002).

125 LA antibodies were measured by FLXM and flow panel reactive antibody (PRA) screening beads.

126 Pretransplantation panel reactive antibody (PRA) testing assesses posttrans

127 zed patients increases proportionally to the panel reactive antibody (PRA) titer.

128 s waiting for a kidney transplant and having panel reactive antibody (PRA) values greater than 85% an

129 The sera of 35 pretransplant panel reactive antibody (PRA)-negative patients with fai

130 lantation outcomes as a function of race and panel reactive antibody (PRA).

131 before transplantation, higher percentage of panel-reactive antibodies (PRA), were more likely to rec

132 sitization protocol for candidates with high panel-reactive antibodies (PRA).

133 0 vs. 52.3 years, P=0.14) and had lower peak panel-reactive antibodies (PRA; 5.1% vs. 15.6%, P=0.07)

134 els of sharing are: (1) 0 A,B mismatch (MM); panel-reactive antibody (PRA) > or = 40%; negative ROP c

135 Cytotoxic panel-reactive antibody (PRA) and SAB assays were analyz

136 We measured the level of HLA panel-reactive antibody (PRA) before surgery, 1 week aft

137 cluding group 1: 58 primary transplants with panel-reactive antibody (PRA) less than 20%, group 2: 16

138 nts evaluated, even though the percentage of panel-reactive antibody (PRA) often demonstrated conside

139 Sensitization, defined as a positive panel-reactive antibody (PRA) screen in patients awaitin

140 cipated in an extensive screening of 92 high panel-reactive antibody (PRA) sera from patients at 29 t

141 patients were analyzed on the basis of their panel-reactive antibody (PRA) status, 10 of 15 (66.7%) w

142 Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) testing provides assessmen

143 Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) testing was performed with

144 Mean peak panel-reactive antibody (PRA) was 47+/-32.

145 Measurement of panel-reactive antibody (PRA) with an enzyme-linked immu

146 Preformed HLA antibodies (Ab), reported as panel-reactive antibody (PRA), prolong patient waiting t

147 matching (mm), HLA-DR mm, pretransplantation panel-reactive antibody (PRA), recipient and donor race

148 ipient cardiac diagnosis, HLA, and recipient panel-reactive antibody (PRA).

149 (HLA) and anti-MICA antibodies or to percent panel-reactive antibody (PRA; by complement-dependent cy

150 base testing for determination of percentage panel reactive antibody ("PRA screen") with limited anti

151 s among recipients stratified by the percent panel reactive antibody (% PRA) of pre-Tx sera as detect

152 Records of nonsensitized patients (panel reactive antibodies [PRA] <20%) receiving a primar

153 who were highly sensitized to HLA antigens (panel reactive antibody [PRA] > or =50% monthly for 3 mo

154 ent failure occurred in a highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody [PRA] of 52%) recipient.

155 very low for the broadly sensitized patient (panel reactive antibody [PRA]>80%; HS).

156 equal numbers of black, retransplants, high panel reactive antibodies (PRAs) (>20%), and prolonged c

157 an leukocyte antigen antibodies, measured as panel reactive antibodies (PRAs), are related to mortali

158 inal disease, retransplants, ABO blood type, panel-reactive antibody, previous treatment, and transpl

159 tigens selected to give a virtual calculated panel-reactive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HL

160 5%; P<0.0005) but not in sensitized (>or=20% panel reactive antibodies) recipients, who showed an ear

161 lower rates of HLA matching, lower levels of panel-reactive antibodies, shorter cold ischemia times,

162 ho had data available for analysis, the mean panel-reactive antibody significantly increased after ne

163 The panel reactive antibody test (PRA) is an established met

164 elated variables (living or cadaveric donor, panel-reactive antibody titer, extent of HLA matching, a

165 We used human panel reactive antibody to form membrane attack complexe

166 ysis, HLA mismatches, recipient age, current panel-reactive antibodies, transplant year, donor age, c

167 eficient hosts engrafted with human T cells, panel-reactive antibody--treated grafts recruited more i

168 h chronic antibody-mediated rejection and in panel-reactive antibody--treated human coronary artery x

169 age of patients were highly sensitized (peak panel reactive antibody value >80%; P=0.009), had had a

170 ant, the mean+/-standard deviation (SD) peak panel-reactive antibody was 60+/-33 and median donor-spe

171 Panel reactive antibodies were performed by conventional

172 casian race, public insurance, and increased panel-reactive antibody were associated with decreased r

173 tus groups, with the exception of calculated panel-reactive antibody which was lowest in the D+/R- gr

174 pient age, sex, race, ethnicity, blood type, panel reactive antibody, year of placement on the waitin