ライフサイエンスコーパス: transplant center

1 re (DT) in a level 1 trauma center and large transplant center.

2 y support (MCS) device recipients at a large transplant center.

3 case-control matched groups at a university transplant center.

4 ugh OLT presents a major challenge for every transplant center.

5 of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

6 atients with advanced HF referred to a heart transplant center.

7 SLT) in a combined pediatric and adult liver transplant center.

8 driving time from residence to closest lung transplant center.

9 he demands in a combined adult and pediatric transplant center.

10 transplant recipients in a single outpatient transplant center.

11 ance included earlier year of evaluation and transplant center.

12 aver renal transplants performed at a single transplant center.

13 pectively from a single, high-volume cardiac transplant center.

14 l patients undergoing LT for FHF at a single transplant center.

15 ion than the median waiting time for a given transplant center.

16 2012 at our institution, a high-volume lung transplant center.

17 ies variation in the use of resources at the transplant centers.

18 vals to identify potentially underperforming transplant centers.

19 areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers.

20 l outcomes is inter-grader variability among transplant centers.

21 vide the basis for quality measurement of US transplant centers.

22 ed for hematologic malignancies in 28 German transplant centers.

23 vals to identify potentially underperforming transplant centers.

24 ed between 1963 and 2007 at three major U.S. transplant centers.

25 loidentical transplantation available in all transplant centers.

26 m January 2007 to July 2009 for adult kidney transplant centers.

27 r trial was performed in 12 pediatric kidney transplant centers.

28 is controversial and contraindicated in many transplant centers.

29 expertise in nephron sparing techniques, not transplant centers.

30 Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers.

31 e effect of advertising for kidney donors on transplant centers.

32 sis of registry data containing all US liver transplant centers.

33 n with 1- and 5-year outcome data for all UK transplant centers.

34 estionnaire to all program directors at U.S. transplant centers.

35 to improve long-term donor follow-up by U.S. transplant centers.

36 ceptance and experience in the public and in transplant centers.

37 oordinating KPD transplants between multiple transplant centers.

38 ors (NDD) are referred to the system through transplant centers.

39 h methods available to the clinician in most transplant centers.

40 infection and monitoring of therapy at many transplant centers.

41 s and encourage adoption of DCD protocols at transplant centers.

42 case-control study was conducted at 23 U.S. transplant centers.

43 e those that were refused by all other local transplant centers.

44 ansplantation was performed at 1 of 12 local transplant centers.

45 0 mg/d on days -5 to -1) in 6 United Kingdom transplant centers.

46 also calculated and compared across UK liver transplant centers.

47 r allografts were shared with regional liver transplant centers.

48 ariation in BMI of accepted donors across US transplant centers.

49 January 2013 to July 2015 among adult kidney transplant centers.

50 aluation for KT as have been found in non-VA transplant centers.

51 ion (KT) in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA transplant centers.

52 Both kidneys were declined by all UK transplant centers.

53 o living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers.

54 ost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.

55 s outside of clinical trials in all Canadian transplant centers.

56 SLK versus LTA differs significantly between transplant centers.

57 differences in live donor education between transplant centers.

58 nit in any of the Australian and New Zealand transplanting centers.

59 ed heparin premortem compared with two of 17 transplant centers (11.8%).

60 ectively over 14 months from personnel in 16 transplant centers, 19 histocompatibility and immunogene

61 iagnosed with liver disease: 44% through the transplant center, 40% by popular media, 12% by their pe

62 The survey was completed by directors of 156 transplant centers (75% response).

63 In most transplant centers, a patient with a BMI above 35 to 40

64 y donor blood type, recipient blood type, or transplant center ABOi volume.

65 donor blood type, recipient blood type, and transplant center ABOi volume.

66 Despite transplant centers accepting recipients who are older wi

67 lts, with the sharing of 25 allografts among transplant centers across the United States.

68 nt) for year 1 after transplantation for all transplant centers, adjusting for recipient, donor, and

69 From this collective experience from five transplant centers (although the follow-up after retrans

70 Of these, 193 (73.4%) were practicing in a transplant center and 160 (60.6%) participated in at lea

71 Models were stratified by transplant center and adjusted for donor and recipient a

72 The transplant center and dosing frequencies of immunosuppre

73 After adjustment for transplant center and dosing frequency, the association

74 ity of tubulitis scores, after adjusting for transplant center and other clinical factors independent

75 ferred to the intensive care unit of a liver transplant center and supported with appropriate airway

76 nter variation in AR rates by stratifying by transplant center and using novel knowledge discovery me

77 a telephone survey of the 25 highest volume transplant centers and 25 highest volume organ procureme

78 n, all PSC patients in the three Dutch liver transplant centers and all inflammatory bowel disease (I

79 matopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) among transplant centers and countries.

80 -group trial conducted in 19 French academic transplant centers and involving participants who were a

81 realistic expectation of patient outcomes at transplant centers and may be of value to transplant cen

82 atory agencies, private insurance providers, transplant centers and patients.

83 at transplant centers and may be of value to transplant centers and policymakers.

84 hese results highlight the discrepancy among transplant centers and the relevance of risk avoidance i

85 ome of recipients or donors refused by other transplant centers and transplanted by our transplant un

86 se, Powerful Others health locus of control, transplant center, and dosing frequency were also associ

87 1c levels, processing centers related to the transplant center, and larger islet size are factors tha

88 riable clinical practices and policies among transplant centers, and patients' potentially compromise

89 mortality outcomes were simulated in virtual transplant centers, and used to flag centers according t

90 ed odds ratios, controlling for individual-, transplant center-, and organ procurement organization-l

91 easing acceptance of these grafts in adults, transplant centers appear reluctant to use these grafts

92 Few transplant centers are currently seeing donors for long-

93 who are HCV positive before transplant, many transplant centers are declining to perform OHT in HCV-s

94 Kidney transplant centers are distributed unevenly throughout 5

95 A significant proportion of kidney transplant centers are identified as low performing with

96 f the significant donor organ shortage, more transplant centers are using livers recovered from DCD d

97 is currently used in a number of major heart transplant centers as a secondary therapy for recalcitra

98 splant patient registry of a kidney-pancreas transplant center between 1984 and 2012.

99 transplant candidates listed at 56 U.S. lung transplant centers between 2006 and 2012.

100 d donor kidney-only transplant in 7 Canadian transplant centers between December 2011 and June 2013.

101 minimum of 36 weeks was instituted at 1 of 3 transplant centers between June 5, 2006, and November 18

102 After adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, and transplant center, both FFP and SPPB were associated wit

103 Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers but has been become more standardized

104 lt to track and often managed outside of the transplant center by primary care providers.

105 ed on a waiting list-a decision made at most transplant centers by a multidisciplinary committee.

106 e of donor characteristics ("nature") versus transplant center characteristics ("nurture") on decease

107 at both unmeasured donor characteristics and transplant center characteristics contribute to the risk

108 ariable analyses identified practitioner and transplant center characteristics predictive of medical

109 rs, as opposed to 13.2 years in the combined transplant centers cohort (n = 422; P < 0.0001).

110 Transplant centers commonly evaluate split renal functio

111 , lower kidney procurement rates, and higher transplant center competition.

112 re-OLT (between 1986 and 1999) at 6 foreign transplant centers comprised the validation cohort.

113 Our review of regional turn-downs suggests transplant centers could potentially identify additional

114 t of 1528 lung transplant recipients from 12 transplant centers, delayed-onset CMV disease occurred i

115 Market competition and transplant center density may affect transplantation acc

116 earlier and were being monitored at the same transplant center developed severe Bordetella bronchisep

117 variates, distance from patient residence to transplant center did not predict placement on the trans

118 Sixty-five percent of transplant centers do not have a dedicated transplant ph

119 Two thirds of transplant centers do not see the kidney transplant reci

120 However, among transplant centers donor kidney function evaluation vari

121 nt Network (RITN), a voluntary consortium of transplant centers, donor centers, and umbilical cord bl

122 diatric, should be immediately referred to a transplant center due to the high likelihood of the deve

123 1625 autologous HSCTs (auto-HSCTs) among 54 transplant centers during 2014 (SIGNB-GITMO-AMCLI study)

124 d transplant education and should supplement transplant center education for Hispanics.

125 f belatacept in combination with tacrolimus, transplant center effects, and differing approaches to m

126 ore specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and

127 We conducted a cohort study across two transplant centers enrolling African Americans who donat

128 Many transplant centers establish a threshold of D-BMI of 30

129 Although most transplant centers evaluated HIV risk behaviors in livin

130 tions and supportive care with guidance from transplant center experts.

131 We enrolled patients from six transplant centers, five in the United States and one in

132 Data from receiving renal transplant centers focused on delayed graft function (DG

133 nce, costs, and lack of reimbursement to the transplant center for providing follow-up care.

134 ease of CBUs from the cord blood bank to the transplant center for transplantation.

135 Eighteen transplants occurred in NEPKE-only transplant centers, four in MAPEP-only centers, and an a

136 ferral for kidney transplant evaluation at a transplant center from a dialysis facility to start the

137 dults undergoing liver transplant at a large transplant center from February 1, 2002, through July 31

138 rformed of all cases of HR at a single large transplant center from January 1, 1995 to March 1, 2006.

139 survival, perhaps paradoxically discouraging transplant centers from these procedures.

140 We recommend that transplant centers give priority to GVH-O-mismatched uni

141 clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the

142 All responding transplant centers had performed donation after circulat

143 hearts, and lungs are recovered only after a transplant center has accepted the organ for transplant.

144 Some transplant centers have begun offering living donor live

145 Several transplant centers have begun to accept kidneys donated

146 Transplant center improvements have extended the indicat

147 patocellular carcinoma was instituted at our transplant center in 1997.

148 for renal transplant evaluation at a single transplant center in the Southeastern United States from

149 A survey was sent to 119 transplant centers in 12 European countries.

150 ansplants were performed at 229 adult kidney transplant centers in 58 DSAs.

151 Participants from 3 transplant centers in Australia and Canada participated

152 valuated the role of spatial organization of transplant centers in conjunction with market competitio

153 and to compare the outcomes in the six liver-transplant centers in England.

154 r pediatric intestinal transplantation among transplant centers in Europe, the United States, and Can

155 New York State found a wide variation among transplant centers in evaluation and screening for HIV r

156 ransplant referral data collected from adult transplant centers in Georgia in the same period.

157 Five transplant centers in New England collaborated for this

158 Our survey of kidney and liver transplant centers in New York State found a wide variat

159 liability, we identified the pediatric liver transplant centers in North America with the lowest hepa

160 being allocated to sicker patients in nearby transplant centers in OPOs with large waiting lists.

161 MACRA) offers a time-sensitive incentive for transplant centers in particular to align with extant CE

162 oupled with variation between the 7 UK liver transplant centers in risk appetite.

163 ocal alliances and collaborations with major transplant centers in the developed world will contribut

164 and yet there is little information to guide transplant centers in the unique aspects of the search a

165 l recipients treated with CsA from all renal transplant centers in the United Kingdom.

166 31,879 primary allografts registered by U.S. transplant centers in the United Network for Organ Shari

167 ed to local assays used by 5 laboratories at transplant centers in the United States and Europe.

168 on Polyomavirus Nephropathy, comprising nine transplant centers in the United States and Europe.

169 We extrapolated these numbers to all transplant centers in the United States, estimating that

170 Therefore, we surveyed all 208 adult kidney transplant centers in the United States, excluding 37 pe

171 ected and analyzed data from 12 large-volume transplant centers in the United States.

172 public funding for as many as 10% of kidney transplant centers in the United States.

173 l transplant patients collected across eight transplant centers in the US, Mexico, and Spain between

174 In multivariable analysis, more kidney transplant centers (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.04; P

175 uated using several methods available at the transplant center, including estimating equations and cl

176 and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).

177 Referral to a liver transplant center is followed by a detailed medical eval

178 Currently, the major limitation facing liver transplant centers is the shortage of organs.

179 transplant recipients referred from 4 French transplant centers (January 1, 2006-January 1, 2011) for

180 cessing the match offers more quickly at the transplant center level, enhancing the donor preselectio

181 or type of KT (deceased or living donor) and transplant center location on days to acceptance varied

182 ng more than 30 miles from specialized liver transplant centers (LTC).

183 Three transplant centers mailed questionnaires to assess SWL,

184 s not accurately predict waitlist mortality, transplant centers may apply to regional review boards f

185 The same patient evaluated in different transplant centers may be offered MMUD, UCB, or haplo-HC

186 zed by more frequent dual listing at another transplant center, more living donor liver transplants,

187 separate validation cohort from a different transplant center (n = 211) confirmed that CXCL9 plasma

188 N (SBN) from August 2003 to 2013 at a single transplant center (n = 66) were retrospectively compared

189 We surveyed kidney and liver transplant centers (N = 18) in New York State to assess

190 nters may not reflect the practices of every transplant center nationwide.

191 ousehold income, and driving time to closest transplant center (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-

192 Retrospective analysis at a university transplant center of 665 adults with HCC who underwent a

193 pective, double-blind trials performed at 55 transplant centers on three continents were the largest

194 -0.93] for each doubling in distance) or any transplant center (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96] for each

195 In many transplant centers, organ retrieval from altruistic stra

196 tes listed for kidney transplant at a single transplant center over 7 years.

197 andardized mortality ratios (SMR) for kidney transplant centers over five distinct eras.

198 aks of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) at renal transplant centers over the past 2 decades.

199 Transplant center (P = 0.003) and increased dosing frequ

200 Previous evaluation at a different transplant center (P = 0.029) and being on dialysis (P =

201 Ps associated with AR with stratification by transplant center (P<0.05).

202 Regions with more transplant centers (p < 0.0001) and fewer transplants (p

203 tation, performed a data protected survey of transplant centers participating in the U.S.

204 Targeted efforts to improve transplant center participation in paired kidney exchang

205 In multivariable models conditioned on transplant center, patients with PSC were significantly

206 listings per capita, larger waitlists, more transplant centers per DSA, and a higher proportion of b

207 ansplant Recipients report cards of US organ transplant center performance are publicly available and

208 Report cards evaluating transplant center performance have received significant

209 ically considered the primary metric of lung transplant center performance in the United States.

210 t performance for each center, and change in transplant center performance is assessed by tabular cum

211 We designed a novel lung transplant center performance metric that incorporates b

212 All US transplant centers performing living donor surgeries wer

213 Most transplant centers performing NDLD distributed these don

214 As the number of transplant centers performing this procedure increases w

215 From 2003 to 2008, US transplant centers prospectively entered information on

216 nodeficiency virus-infected patients per the transplant center protocol.

217 EDC are typically allocated by transplant center rather than regional wait-list priorit

218 1 month before surgery; however, only 50% of transplant centers repeated HIV testing within 14 days b

219 Transplant leaders have focused attention on transplant center report cards as a likely cause for thi

220 (CRT) in type I diabetic patients at 112 US transplant centers reported to UNOS during 1994 through

221 logy, liver only donor, imaging results, and transplant center request were the most common indicatio

222 Thirty-eight liver transplant centers served a population of about 135 mill

223 Twenty-six transplant centers shared kidneys, according to the algo

224 kidney paired donation and suggest that all transplant centers should be actively engaged in paired

225 Transplant centers should be armed with an implementatio

226 Organ procurement organizations and transplant centers should be aware of the potential for

227 When this occurs, transplant centers should be prepared to help the donor

228 Transplant centers should be provided with tools to faci

229 arket competition was associated with kidney transplant center spatial clustering (P < 0.001).

230 More than half of transplant centers surveyed currently perform or are wil

231 Transplant centers that accept NDD should document an in

232 heaviness and is considered to be useless by transplant centers that do not perform it.

233 A survey of US transplant centers that have performed more than 100 LTs

234 e data support the current policy of several transplant centers that people who wish to donate a kidn

235 We conducted a survey of transplant centers that perform SLK (n = 88, 65% respons

236 ariation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, an

237 case loads vary substantially among US lung transplant centers, the impact of center effects on pati

238 nic graft-vs-host disease, as ascertained by transplant centers through regular patient follow-up.

239 ng for an organ removal continues in private transplant centers throughout India, service to foreign

240 or organ removal (HTOR) continues in various transplant centers throughout India.

241 tions of patients who were considered by the transplant center to be at an increased cardiovascular r

242 tions of patients who were considered by the transplant center to be at an increased cardiovascular r

243 is evidence of increasing willingness among transplant centers to consider nondirected living donati

244 med a cross-country survey of Canadian Organ Transplant centers to determine organ utilization practi

245 ephrology practices, dialysis providers, and transplant centers to develop care coordination strategi

246 age liver and kidney disease, prompting some transplant centers to eliminate HIV infection as a contr

247 organs for liver transplantation has forced transplant centers to expand the donor pool by using don

248 It remains important for transplant centers to maintain contact with transplant r

249 Network for Organ Sharing currently requires transplant centers to report donor follow-up information

250 cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support intervent

251 Based on 74 cases reported by transplant centers to the registry, HCC incidence was 6.

252 livers split, and will promote sharing among transplant centers to truly optimize the number of liver

253 let cell transplantation has influenced many transplant centers to utilize this novel regimen.

254 cipients were investigated by contacting the transplant centers to verify that the reported tumors we

255 dult renal transplant recipients at a single transplant center transplanted between August 16, 1996,

256 hic areas with limited access to specialized transplant centers (TxC).

257 ry outcomes included being waitlisted at any transplant center, undergoing a transplantation, and sur

258 hite donors with essential hypertension, our transplant center undertook a structured program of acce

259 rwent LT between 2002 and 2012 at 3 academic transplant centers (University of California-San Francis

260 Although most lung transplant centers use antifungal prophylaxis, consensus

261 Forty-four percent of transplant centers used HIV nucleic acid testing (NAT) t

262 Twenty-one of the 22 UK renal transplant centers used prophylactic oral valganciclovir

263 the likelihood of PP use, and clustering on transplant center using multivariable logistic regressio

264 ho underwent LT at the University of Toronto transplant center using the C concordance statistic and

265 ecommend this route of administration to all transplant centers using alemtuzumab.

266 Across Europe, transplant centers vary in the content of the psychosoci

267 Transplant centers vary in the proportion of kidney tran

268 waitlisted at a VATC and 2523 (5.3%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs).

269 waitlisted at a VATC and 372 (10.9%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs).

270 determine the association between adult lung transplant center volume and 1-year recipient mortality

271 n increasingly important determinant of lung transplant center volume and that policies that improve

272 The impact of transplant center volume on pancreas allograft survival

273 Average annual transplant center volume was categorized by tertiles int

274 association of report card evaluations with transplant center volume.

275 ransplantation (PIT) has resulted in several transplant centers wanting to start PIT programs.

276 stance from patient residence to the nearest transplant center was 48 mi.

277 ntation, greater distance from a VATC or any transplant center was associated with lower likelihood o

278 of starting dialysis at any of the 3 Georgia transplant centers was the primary outcome; placement on

279 A collaborative study involving 14 transplant centers was undertaken by the Organ Procureme

280 Using data from four transplant centers, we identified all liver transplant c

281 Potential living donors (n=443) at two transplant centers were administered the LDEQ and other

282 et characteristics, larger numbers of kidney transplant centers were associated with more kidney tran

283 Data on 2322 patients from 49 transplant centers were enrolled and met inclusion crite

284 Kidney transplant centers were geocoded to measure spatial orga

285 idates undergoing transplant evaluation at 2 transplant centers were randomized to use Inform Me afte

286 ant evaluation and their family/friends at 2 transplant centers were randomized to view Informate bef

287 ilizing SMV+SOF with or without RBV at three transplant centers were retrospectively reviewed.

288 nce for clustering of alemtuzumab use within transplant centers which did not impact long-term outcom

289 uded in the consensus statement was that all transplant centers which have performed living donor sur

290 the medical records of 391 patients from two transplant centers who underwent LT for HCC.

291 liver disease in a geographic location and a transplant center will be invaluable as a first step in

292 This study reports the experience of a large transplant center with controlled DCDD.

293 Transplant centers with high false-positive HCC rates ma

294 variation in the criteria used for SLK among transplant centers, with few centers following the curre

295 listed for liver transplantation at a single transplant center without MELD exceptions were assessed

296 The additional workload placed on transplant centers without additional funding will creat

297 at this technique allows sharing among liver transplant centers without compromise in patient or allo

298 me of transplantation, are performed in many transplant centers worldwide.

299 outcomes for patients treated in low-volume transplant centers would be improved by reorganizing cen

300 rious flagging of many adequately-performing transplant centers, yet the methods used by CMS fail to