ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft survival

1 pients, graft quality correlates directly to graft survival.

2 donor livers achieved excellent patient and graft survival.

3 splantation and its evaluation for long-term graft survival.

4 a number of mechanisms leading to shortened graft survival.

5 me of listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival.

6 s associated with lower patient survival and graft survival.

7 idney injury is known to correlate with poor graft survival.

8 , this progress was not matched in long-term graft survival.

9 age has an approximately linear influence on graft survival.

10 Multivariable Cox models were used to assess graft survival.

11 indirect alloresponse further prolonged skin graft survival.

12 delayed graft function (DGF), and long-term graft survival.

13 FHF, while DCD status was only predictive of graft survival.

14 as an independent predictor for patient and graft survival.

15 of recurrence and with significantly longer graft survival.

16 56% reduction in center variation in overall graft survival.

17 a differential impact of DGF on DBD and DCD graft survival.

18 ild chronic changes have excellent long-term graft survival.

19 argeted mild hypothermia had improved 1-year graft survival.

20 ith costimulatory blockade induces long-term graft survival.

21 ntly greater resource requirements and lower graft survival.

22 umors tended to show improved death-censored graft survival.

23 consider HLA matching due to concerns about graft survival.

24 complications should be minimized to improve graft survival.

25 ely affecting donor physiology or extrarenal graft survival.

26 inferior 10-year patient and death-censored graft survival.

27 era was associated with improved patient and graft survival.

28 significant challenge to achieving long-term graft survival.

29 g impact of various cutoff levels on 10-year graft survival.

30 rded as risk factors for rejection and lower graft survival.

31 were examined for patient and death-censored graft survival.

32 cal treatment to avoid rejection and prolong graft survival.

33 s shown to reduce graft opacity and increase graft survival.

34 The main outcome measure was graft survival.

35 n of allograft rejection and prolongation of graft survival.

36 waiting for kidney transplant, and inferior graft survival.

37 t the effect of dnDSA on pancreas transplant graft survival.

38 Primary endpoint was 3-month graft survival.

39 ints for trials aimed at improving long-term graft survival.

40 ment options that increase SIRT1 may improve graft survival.

41 of donor hepatectomy time on death-censored graft survival.

42 kade in BD donors to prevent DGF and improve graft survival.

43 ffective, resulting in reasonable, long-term graft survival.

44 tion of ATG improves both response rates and graft survival.

45 t the time of transplantation prolonged skin graft survival.

46 sity (ECD), postoperative complications, and graft survival.

47 duce Treg, resulting in mild prolongation of graft survival.

48 merular filtration rate at 1 y, or long-term graft survival.

49 The principal outcome was patient and graft survival.

50 combined with low-dose rapamycin to prolong graft survival.

51 g Tac IPV are crucial to improving long-term graft survival.

52 sociated with superior long-term patient and graft survival.

53 s continues to represent a major obstacle to graft survival.

54 ey had a nonsignificant trend toward a lower graft survival.

55 significant challenge to achieving long-term graft survival.

56 (BSCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and graft survival.

57 ure was identified, associated with 3 months graft survival.

58 oidosis occurred the latest and had the best graft survival.

59 d the strongest associations with subsequent graft survival.

60 ter ITx in our unit, with at least 1 year of graft survival.

61 ssed the impact of belatacept on patient and graft survivals.

62 NI were associated with improved patient and graft survivals.

63 s 13% reduction; P<0.05) and prolonged renal graft survival (28.0 days versus 5.2 days; P<0.01).

64 y patient (89.0% versus 80.4%; P = 0.04) and graft survival (51.6% versus 39.9%; P = 0.04) compared w

65 recipients, en bloc recipients had lower 1-y graft survival (78.9% versus 88.9%; P = 0.007); however,

66 ere was improvement with PR-T versus IR-T in graft survival (83% versus 77% at 4 y, respectively; P =

67 ere were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean e

68 s 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005).

69 vs. 91.4%, p=0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% vs. 90.6%, p=0.005).

70 Estimated 5-year graft survival (95% confidence interval) was 78.5% (72.5

71 at 3-year patient (96.4%) and death-censored graft survival (96.8%) was excellent.

72 he strongest association with death-censored graft survival across all age groups.

73 were organ utilization rate and patient and graft survival after 1 year.

74 h higher eGFR (p-value<=0.001) and increased graft survival after accounting for microvascular inflam

75 no difference in rejection-free, patient, or graft survival after conversion to belatacept over 5 yea

76 tocols based on these findings could improve graft survival after SL transplantation, which would enc

77 Graft survival after transplantation was estimated using

78 y nonfunction (PNF) and short- and long-term graft survivals after LT.

79 athy occurred the earliest and had the worst graft survival, AL amyloidosis occurred the latest and h

80 survival, graft survival, and death-censored graft survival among matched-paired recipients.

81 e rejection (AR) and the high rate of 1-year graft survival among patients with AR have prompted re-e

82 When we further compared death-censored graft survival among the specific causes for first graft

83 Patient and graft survival among unauthorized immigrants is comparab

84 ic kidney disease is associated with reduced graft survival, an abundance of literature has demonstra

85 lar trends in (1) posttransplant patient and graft survival and (2) posttransplant hospitalization fo

86 62% reduction in center variation in 5-year graft survival and 56% reduction in center variation in

87 after transplant, but their association with graft survival and clinical outcomes requires further ev

88 Graft survival and estimated glomerular filtration rate

89 e of rapamycin regimen resulted in sustained graft survival and function in >90% of allogeneic recipi

90 ot have clinically meaningful differences in graft survival and function.

91 renal transplant is associated with reduced graft survival and increased immunogenicity.

92 vitro analysis and qualitatively demonstrate graft survival and injury site retention using a rat C4

93 g effector immunity is imperative to improve graft survival and minimize conventional immunosuppressi

94 regnancy after KT has no effect on long-term graft survival and only a possible effect on graft funct

95 Short-term graft survival and outcomes of primary transplants for F

96 l appraisal of transplant outcomes including graft survival and patient quality of life together with

97 Long-term graft survival and patient survival in DCD-FHF are compa

98 time had a similar effect on death-censored graft survival and patient survival.

99 ded to the preservation solution can prolong graft survival and reduce biliary damage.

100 Primary outcomes included graft survival and rejection rates, and secondary outcom

101 We used Cox regression for patient/graft survival and sequential Cox approach for survival

102 Long-term graft survival and serum creatinine with kidneys from Sp

103 sting was associated with poorer patient and graft survival and support from a multidisciplinary live

104 th early allograft dysfunction (EAD), 1-year graft survival, and 1-year patient survival.

105 zed intragraft and splenic MSC localization, graft survival, and alloimmune response in mice recipien

106 DPI subgroups and compared patient survival, graft survival, and death-censored graft survival among

107 study analyzed real-world practice patterns, graft survival, and outcomes of Descemet membrane endoth

108 evaluated were indications for keratoplasty, graft survival, and postoperative visual acuity (VA) imp

109 ted efficacy due to low cell retention, poor graft survival, and the nonmaintenance of a physiologica

110 rted for other organ transplant recipients), graft survival, and uterus transplant live birth rate (d

111 n, migrated to cardiac allografts, prolonged graft survival, and were synergistic with anti-CD154 mAb

112 r transplantation have improved, patient and graft survival are limited by infection, cancer, and oth

113 tration rate trajectories and death-censored graft survival as primary endpoints.

114 the currently reported 1-year posttransplant graft survival assessments are commonly criticized for n

115 ease, there was no significant difference in graft survival at 1 (88% versus 84%), 5 (76% versus 74%)

116 Graft survival at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 96.6%,

117 of estimating the preliminary probability of graft survival at 1-year post-HLTx on the basis of preop

118 essfully transplanted, with 100% patient and graft survival at 3 and 6 months.

119 Patient and graft survival at 3 years posttransplantation were 74% (

120 the second kidney transplant, death-censored graft survival at 5 years for the second renal allograft

121 Pancreas graft survival at 52 weeks, defined by insulin independe

122 n of antiviral therapy for HCV infection and graft survival at 6 months after transplantation.

123 ity correlated with the incidence of EAD and graft survival at 6 months.

124 e aim of this study was to compare long-term graft survival between PK and DALK.

125 There was no significant difference in graft survival between the congenital and acquired group

126 various cutoffs was studied by comparing the graft survival between the DSA-positive and DSA-negative

127 onths, there was no difference in patient or graft survival between the EW and non-EW cohorts.

128 ard ratios (HRs) that compared mortality and graft survival between those who had experienced a suspe

129 depletion (day 0 or 20), however, abrogated graft survival, but late depletion (day 25) did not.

130 Topically applied ripasudil prolonged graft survival by downregulating neovascularization and

131 and 76.0%; P = .3), death-censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non-CACPR: 8

132 %, 76.3%; P = .7), and death-censored kidney graft survival (CACPR: 97.0%, 89.5%, 78.2%; non-CACPR: 9

133 Cox regression analyses for patient and graft survival (censored and uncensored for death with a

134 rative complications and similar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis.

135 ho underwent DMEK for FECD and BK had better graft survival compared to DSAEK and PK.

136 = 0.018) showed significantly poorer 1-year graft survival compared with the intermediate-PF group (

137 all, KTA recipients had superior patient and graft survival compared with the KALT group.

138 fer of these three MDSCs led to differential graft survival: control (6 days), tx-MDSCs (7.5 days), t

139 ld achieve acceptable long-term outcomes and graft survival could be maintained solely with CoB.

140 oven in an islet transplantation model, skin graft survival could not be prolonged.

141 een associated with decreased death-censored graft survival (DC-GS).

142 ear patient survival (PS) and death-censored graft survival (DCGS) based on 6662 patients in the Thai

143 Death-censored graft survival (DCGS) differed at 3 years postrejection

144 ween the C/D ratio and death-censored kidney graft survival (DCGS).

145 t number (P = 0.532), whereas death-censored graft survival declined progressively, from 89% at 5 yea

146 Graft survival decreased over time from 91% at 1 year to

147 Among the UAB cohort, graft survival did not differ between AA and white recip

148 en results in patients having a much shorter graft survival due to AMR.

149 (0.99) ) transplantation, and posttransplant graft survival evaluations with one additional tier were

150 tacrolimus significantly improved long-term graft survival following allogeneic PITx.

151 Here, we report long-term graft survival for all organs along with donor critical

152 tcomes), with eventual 1-year posttransplant graft survival for candidates listed between July 12, 20

153 fts, large studies show equivalent long-term graft survival for DBD and DCD grafts.

154 dance of literature has demonstrated similar graft survival for deceased donors with AKI versus donor

155 tionship between the cutoff level and 1-year graft survival for DSA-positive transplants was found wh

156 Graft survival for optical grafts was significantly bett

157 l count are associated with better long-term graft survival for optical grafts.

158 The 10-year graft survival for primary DALK was superior to that for

159 metabolizers could be a strategy to improve graft survival, for example, by optimizing tacrolimus fo

160 We sought to compare long-term graft survival (freedom from death or retransplantation)

161 We compared patient and graft survival, frequency of endoscopic evaluation, epis

162 ti-CD154 mAb, MDSCs synergistically extended graft survival from 40 days (anti-CD154 alone) to 86 day

163 Improvement in graft survival (GS) after reLT was seen over the 3 eras

164 Since long-term islet graft survival had not been achieved in islet xenotransp

165 CI, -2.07 to 3.22; P = 0.67), and long-term graft survival (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.33; P

166 with lower probability of prolonged pancreas graft survival (hazard ratio: 0.52; confidence interval:

167 Despite this, both patient and graft survival improved during this period.

168 Graft survival improved over time, suggesting a learning

169 ntibody (DSA) positivity on long-term kidney graft survival in 3237 deceased-donor transplants.

170 the fully MHC mismatched allogeneic cardiac graft survival in a donor-specific fashion.

171 upstream GC responses successfully prolongs graft survival in a sensitized NHP model despite signifi

172 limus, could significantly improve long-term graft survival in allogeneic PITx.

173 irm the nonsignificant trend towards a lower graft survival in CMV high-risk patients treated with be

174 One-year graft survival in DCD-FHF was inferior to DBD-FHF (72.9%

175 However, 3- and 5-year graft survival in DCD-FHF were comparable to DBD-FHF (67

176 The graft survival in eyes with BK was poorer overall; howev

177 Three-year cumulative graft survival in LT recipients with and without HIV inf

178 Three-year cumulative graft survival in LT recipients with and without HIV inf

179 ve not previously been associated with worse graft survival in multivariable analyses; however, they

180 nonsarcopenic patients but failed to predict graft survival in patients with sarcopenia.

181 trends in frequency of organ utilization and graft survival in recipients of HCV-viremic donors (HCV-

182 In contrast, graft survival in retransplantations was comparable (HR

183 ntibodies (dnDSA) has detrimental effects on graft survival in several types of solid organ transplan

184 sociated with steroid resistance and reduced graft survival in some studies but not in others, and th

185 immunomodulation that accomplishes sustained graft survival in the absence of chronic immunosuppressi

186 Long-term graft survival in the absence of continuing immunosuppre

187 time of indication biopsy and with increased graft survival in the CSC.

188 ts at listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival included candidates listed between July 1

189 tained from uDCD donors, overall patient and graft survival is acceptable in kidney, liver, and lung

190 Although graft survival is significantly lower using uDCD livers,

191 Death-censored graft survival is unaffected.

192 The mechanism for similar graft survival is unclear.

193 scarded livers, with 100% 90-day patient and graft survival; it does not seem to prevent non-anastomo

194 = 0.75; at 5 y, HS: 85.7%, non-HS: 83.7%) or graft survival (log-rank P = 0.17; at 5 y, HS: 78.5%, no

195 5; at 5 years, HS: 85.7%, non-HS: 83.7%;) or graft survival (log-rank p=0.17; at 5 years, HS: 78.5%,

196 number of pancreas recipients with prolonged graft survival may be rising, healthcare providers shoul

197 Graft survival measured 87% at 3 months, 85% at 6 months

198 We conclude that graft-survival models including histology predict graft

199 RCL-02 monotherapy only marginally prolonged graft survival (MST = 13.16 d; group 2) compared with un

200 tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, >1-year graft survival, no initial use of everolimus, and availa

201 converted to PRCL-02 monotherapy had a mean graft survival of 35.3 days which was prolonged compared

202 at 1 year and 69% at 5 years with respective graft survival of 87% and 56%.

203 tients with an overall tumor-censored 5-year graft survival of 89%.

204 ; however, the DMEK group still had the best graft survival of 94.7%, compared to DSAEK (65.1%) and P

205 e DMEK group had the best overall cumulative graft survival of 97.4%, compared to DSAEK (78.4%) and P

206 eyes with FECD, the DMEK group had the best graft survival of 98.7% compared to DSAEK (96.2%) and PK

207 ompared long-term patient and death-censored graft survival of en bloc kidney (EBK) and split kidney

208 There were no significant differences in graft survival of extrarenal organs.

209 Unadjusted post-LT patient and graft survival of HEHE patients was not different from p

210 ptive immune response, leading to pig kidney graft survival of many months without features of reject

211 Corneal graft survival, opacity, neovascularization, re-epitheli

212 sociation was found between Sdc-1 and 1-year graft survival or 1-year patient survival.

213 A strong correlation between DSA and graft survival or function cannot be statistically estab

214 observe a difference in Banff biopsy scores, graft survival, or patient survival compared with those

215 Ten-year graft survival outcomes were compared.

216 Rejection-free, patient, and graft survival over 5 years follow-up were compared betw

217 Rejection-free, patient, and graft survival over 5 years follow-up were compared betw

218 s, there was no difference in death-censored graft survival (P = .11), acute rejection (P = .49), and

219 with superior (lower) 90-day SMR had longer graft survival (P for trend <0.001).

220 Graft survival, patient survival, and complications were

221 relationship between comorbidity and 2-year graft survival, patient survival, and transplant surviva

222 nce problem shows that informative bounds on graft survival probabilities conditional on refined HLA

223 Graft survival probability of the study group at 12, 24,

224 Graft survival probability was 0.83 (95% confidence inte

225 Graft survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years was

226 from IR-T to PR-T after 1 month had a higher graft survival rate than patients receiving IR-T at last

227 Three-year cumulative graft survival rate was significantly (P < .001) lower f

228 ce, indications for grafting, complications, graft survival rate, and causes of graft failure were an

229 Main outcome measurements were mean graft survival rate.

230 ng significance, overall, 5-year and 10-year graft survival rates (57.1%, 94.7% and 53.8%, respective

231 aching significance, overall, 5- and 10-year graft survival rates (57.1%, 94.7%, and 53.8%, respectiv

232 he US cohort experienced significantly lower graft survival rates among AA than white recipients (kid

233 The overall corneal graft survival rates at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were

234 hieved similar post-transplant recipient and graft survival rates exceeding 85% and comparable to the

235 uent acute graft pyelonephritis, patient and graft survival rates in LUTM at 10 years were similar to

236 or utilization, and highest 5-year estimated graft survival rates of all regions.

237 Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 100% and 95%, respectively.

238 The overall Kaplan-Meier graft survival rates were 64.7% in the postoperative ave

239 In the uDCD group, 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were 73.3%, 65.1%, and 63.6%, respe

240 ng the study groups, the 1-, 3-, and 6-month graft survival rates were 82%, 74%, and 74%, respectivel

241 Overall and graft survival rates were not statistically different ac

242 ection treated with the addition of ATG, and graft survival rates were significantly better with grad

243 death), delayed graft function, patient and graft survival rates, and renal function.

244 nagement, culture data, visual outcomes, and graft survival rates.

245 eceased donors being associated with reduced graft survival, recipients had lower mortality rates tha

246 resulting in 8% and 21% lower 1- and 10-year graft survivals, respectively, for 8% DSA-positive trans

247 In addition, our data show that, in case of graft survival, SCr remains stable over the years.

248 ys that better match anticipated patient and graft survival should be strongly considered to maximize

249 However, four of five animals with long-term graft survival showed gradual rebound of donor-specific

250 cute sAMR (-25.2 +/- 28.3 mL/min/1.73m2) and graft survival significantly lower.

251 cute sAMR (-25.2 +/- 28.3 mL/min/1.73 m) and graft survival significantly lower.

252 tality, rather than kidney quality, dictates graft survival significantly.

253 and 753 DNAT(+) /R(+) patients, with 2-year graft survival similar across all groups: DNAT(-) /R(-)

254 ge were associated with improved patient and graft survival (steroids: patient survival hazard ratio

255 with significantly increased death-censored graft survival, suggesting impaired immune responsivenes

256 ith pre-LTx BMI >= 30 kg/m had worse overall graft survival than normal weight patients (75.8% and 85

257 first graft failure, the BK group had better graft survival than patients who had prior allograft fai

258 h BMI values >=30 kg/m had worse patient and graft survival than those with normal weight.

259 With regard to prediction of death-censored graft survival, the combination of high SBP and high PP

260 We assessed graft survival through 1 year of all solid organs transp

261 However, presence of a GDD may reduce graft survival times and may pose a risk for more freque

262 By extending graft survival to 3 months, the ASM will optimize eye ba

263 We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, an

264 We evaluated patient and graft survival using Kaplan-Meier and Fleming-Harrington

265 Overall patient and pancreas graft survival was 100% and 93% at a mean follow-up of 2

266 Median graft survival was 185 months (96-269), and median survi

267 One-year graft survival was 69.8% pre-DAA and 83.8% post-DAA (P <

268 The 2-y graft survival was 88% for cDCD group and 85% for DBD gr

269 Graft survival was also poorer in those who had been sus

270 Graft survival was also poorer in those who had been sus

271 Graft survival was associated with expansion of CD4(+)CD

272 Patient and uncensored graft survival was decreased in patients with TASC II C/

273 The impact of DGF on DBD and DCD graft survival was evaluated in 6635 kidney transplants

274 However, neither patient nor graft survival was found to differ significantly by dono

275 in the HLA-ID group, 10-year death-censored graft survival was higher (93.8% vs 80.9% HLA non-ID LDK

276 Graft survival was prolonged in the desensitization grou

277 with kidneys from donors 60 to 79 years old, graft survival was significantly lower for kidneys from

278 By contrast, in DSApos-patients, 5-year graft survival was significantly lower with DGF (64% ver

279 Graft survival was significantly prolonged with lower gr

280 Graft survival was significantly superior for patients r

281 found in all other characteristics evaluated.Graft survival was similar between both groups, as was t

282 Overall graft survival was similar between the diffuse GFT group

283 Death-censored graft survival was similar to the controls.

284 nationally (P < 0.01); yet, overall, 3-year graft survival was statistically higher among UAB than U

285 KTA graft survival was superior compared with KALT recipient

286 Graft survival was superior in patients undergoing reLT

287 Regarding graft survival, we observed in the "small children" grou

288 ne reconstitution, liver function tests, and graft survival were determined.

289 ariate analysis, the factors associated with graft survival were HT longer than 60 minutes, donor old

290 hat independent risk factors for patient and graft survival were intraoperative transfusion of >6 uni

291 function and renal function, and patient and graft survival were not different between the arms.

292 Response rates and graft survival were not different with grade I rejection

293 However, response rates and graft survival were significantly better with grade III

294 Patient and death-censored graft survival were similar among recipients of IK, EBK,

295 sus 38.8% for HCV Ab[-]), 1-year patient and graft survival were similar in the HCV(+) and HCV(-) gro

296 Patient and graft survival were studied using Kaplan-Meier method, l

297 We consider prediction of graft survival when a kidney from a deceased donor is tr

298 pressed alloantibody production and enhanced graft survival when transferred into transplant recipien

299 There was no difference in graft survival when transplantation was performed on an

300 e, sarcopenia predicted inferior patient and graft survival, with low muscle density (PD: <38.5 HU or