ライフサイエンスコーパス: kidney donor

1 ith KTx recipients regardless of the type of kidney donor.

2 is critical for the selection of a potential kidney donor.

3 isk variants were genotyped in additional AA kidney donors.

4 d prevent adverse outcomes in living related kidney donors.

5 in RTRs compared with 85 +/- 25 mmol/24 h in kidney donors.

6 idates and to inform acceptance criteria for kidney donors.

7 ict long-term renal outcomes in white living kidney donors.

8 ult was consistent across different types of kidney donors.

9 x volume [RCV]) were performed in 101 living kidney donors.

10 R: 1.9-12.0 y) after transplantation and 253 kidney donors.

11 tions of current voters toward paying living kidney donors.

12 ate, eGFR) of the remaining kidney in living kidney donors.

13 t studies of financial incentives for living kidney donors.

14 h might be alleviated by compensating living kidney donors.

15 PCCs were studied in 42 normal adrenals from kidney donors.

16 cept for 1A, different from those in healthy kidney donors.

17 tively benign renal outcomes for most living kidney donors.

18 on might increase the cardiovascular risk in kidney donors.

19 hat is not representative of all U.S. living kidney donors.

20 but needs to be tested in healthy potential kidney donors.

21 ssential in the risk evaluation of potential kidney donors.

22 eGFR is a poor predictor of true GFR in kidney donors.

23 ies in medical conditions occur among living kidney donors.

24 the appropriateness of accepting obese live kidney donors.

25 t option for patients with incompatible live kidney donors.

26 based equations for estimating GFR in former kidney donors.

27 testing in the screening process for living kidney donors.

28 nimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors.

29 vent long-term predictions of risk for young kidney donors.

30 ain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.

31 ansplantation resulting from the scarcity of kidney donors.

32 nsent and varies substantially across living kidney donors.

33 we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of do

34 d trials and observational studies in living kidney donors 18 years or older.

35 linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from a priva

36 Among 90 013 living kidney donors, 2001-2016, proportions who were very obes

37 From a population of 3,698 living kidney donors, 257 donors were randomly selected to unde

38 ong-term outcomes of African American living kidney donors (AALKDs).

39 d in 127 normal adrenal glands from deceased kidney donors (age, 9 months to 68 years).

40 n exploring the use of HCV viremic liver and kidney donor allografts in HCV-negative recipients.

41 We analyzed a total of 30 living kidney donor and recipient pairs, with a follow-up of at

42 terquartile range [IQR], 3.9-11.5 years) for kidney donors and 15.0 years (IQR, 13.7-15.0 years) for

43 n was 30.8 per 10,000 (95% CI, 24.3-38.5) in kidney donors and 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.8-8.9) in th

44 1 risk alleles among African American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African

45 ival data were compared with those from live kidney donors and healthy participants of the National H

46 tion is critical in the evaluation of living kidney donors and higher donor glomerular filtration rat

47 liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donors and NHANES participants (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1

48 rmal kidney samples from living and deceased kidney donors and normal poles of nephrectomies.

49 a and urine samples from living and deceased kidney donors and performed BKV polymerase chain reactio

50 MV prevention strategy via matching deceased kidney donors and recipients by CMV serostatus.

51 lant registry to select a cohort of deceased kidney donors and the corresponding transplant recipient

52 Thirteen healthy kidney donors and their corresponding recipients prospec

53 Thirteen healthy kidney donors and their corresponding recipients underwe

54 Living kidney donors and their corresponding recipients were en

55 Survey of previous directed living kidney donors and their recipients in a single Canadian

56 Evaluation and eligibility of live kidney donors and their short- and long-term risks are d

57 may influence hypothetical and actual living kidney donors and where appropriate, summarizes the quan

58 dney biopsy homogenates in 11 healthy living kidney donors, and 12 patients with CKD.

59 ed risk of ESRD has been reported for living kidney donors, and appears to be higher for those donati

60 mpacting allograft survival from deceased AA kidney donors, APOL1 renal-risk variants were genotyped

61 l and the risk of ESRD in carefully screened kidney donors appear to be similar to those in the gener

62 e profound organ shortages, the use of older kidney donors appears to be an equivalent or beneficial

63 Recent evidence suggests that living kidney donors are at an increased risk of end-stage rena

64 le cautious criteria for selection of living kidney donors are credited for favorable outcomes, recen

65 Data regarding health outcomes among living kidney donors are lacking, especially among nonwhite per

66 The acceptance criteria used for living kidney donors are largely theoretical, as they are not c

67 Kidney donors are selected for health and lack the spect

68 einuria, reduced GFR, and ESRD in 3956 white kidney donors, assessed the contribution of postdonation

69 Societal plight driving caution about living kidney donor assessment was emphasized in the context of

70 We evaluated 1638 living kidney donors at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ sites) and Cleve

71 es genetic testing in the evaluation of live kidney donors at risk for ADPKD whose disease status can

72 nt physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy a

73 We identified 1388 living kidney donors at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clini

74 mated the number of potential imminent death kidney donors at the University of Wisconsin Hospital an

75 rding the evaluation and selection of living kidney donors based on metabolic, cardiovascular, and su

76 Urines from kidney donors before nephrectomy, pretransplant patients

77 ucational programs in this field to let many kidney donors benefit.

78 One thousand six hundred sequential living kidney donor biopsies were performed between 2001 and 20

79 d for more comprehensive follow-up of living kidney donors, both for the donor's benefit and to estab

80 ed 'hypothetical' willingness to be a living kidney donor but with marked heterogeneity in the absolu

81 r as the leading cause of death among living kidney donors, but information on the burden of cancer o

82 Kidney donors can develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

83 tices used to assess kidney health in living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rate was 3

84 Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuri

85 ides a better estimate of kidney function in kidney donor candidates than either measure alone, altho

86 We examined 769 living kidney donor candidates with 24-hour urine collections a

87 of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increasing emp

88 signed to measure the expectations of living kidney donor candidates.

89 s the relevance of GFR assessment for living kidney donor candidates.

90 is a key aspect in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates; however, data on performance of

91 rojected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance criteri

92 Forty-two living kidney donors (Caucasian; 76% female [n=32]; 53 +/- 10 y

93 11 patients from Birmingham, United Kingdom, kidney donor CC genotype at C3435T (rs1045642) within AB

94 tial or total nephrectomy in previous living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors.

95 Among a cohort of live kidney donors compared with a healthy matched cohort, th

96 psychologically screened unspecified living kidney donors completed the Symptom Checklist before and

97 ties for long-term costs generated by living kidney donors contributes to the problem was examined by

98 d have been available from the OPTN deceased kidney donors during 2002 to 2004 were investigated.

99 Our data suggests that postdonation, kidney donor eGFR increases each year for a number of ye

100 compare the outcomes of the first 60 living kidney donors enrolled in our enhanced recovery program

101 ansplant professional perspectives on living kidney donor evaluation in Asia.

102 g an overview of current practices in living kidney donor evaluation, our study highlights the import

103 arch on individuals who withdraw from living kidney donor evaluation.

104 o undergo nephrectomy or adults who serve as kidney donors exhibit little difference in renal functio

105 isdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have been evalu

106 ped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association of TL

107 Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy will af

108 sement from insurance providers for a living kidney donor from 47% to 85% of the amount billed.

109 tation Network registrations for 4650 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2007 with administrative data

110 We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Orga

111 status and development of ESRD in 143 living kidney donors from 1994 to 2007 with predonation impaire

112 a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011.

113 he study population consisted of 3074 living kidney donors from 28 centers during 2004 and 2005.

114 Hemorrhagic deaths of living kidney donors from failure of vascular clips used on the

115 prospective cohort study involving deceased kidney donors from five organ procurement organizations.

116 ve study of 4650 persons who had been living kidney donors from October 1987 through July 2007 and wh

117 Compared with matched healthy nondonors, kidney donors had an increased risk of ESRD over a media

118 Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the g

119 CysC) and serum creatinine (Creat) in living kidney donors has not been studied before.

120 Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal

121 renal disease (ESRD) risks for young living kidney donors have conflicted with the knowledge and pra

122 Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs

123 Previous studies of living kidney donors have not specifically examined subsets wit

124 In summary, hypertensive living kidney donors have similar outcome in terms of blood pre

125 The overall evidence suggests that living kidney donors have survival similar to that of nondonors

126 atients and for confirmation of A2 status of kidney donors; hematology for comprehensive typing for p

127 e, and demographic characteristics to living kidney donors' homes between 2010 and 2012.

128 No living kidney donor in our cohort received a partial or total n

129 ntation Network identifiers for 4,650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to administrat

130 antation Network identifiers for 4650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to administrat

131 etwork (OPTN) registry data for 4,007 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2008 with Medicare billing clai

132 compare their characteristics with those of kidney donors in 2017.

133 umbilicus) outcomes justify application for kidney donors in experienced centers and may motivate ad

134 viewed the predonation charts for all living kidney donors in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and 2010 a

135 The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the developm

136 scopic donor nephrectomies in 2006, two live kidney donors in the United States and one in India have

137 We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 and 2014

138 a mandated national registry of 80 347 live kidney donors in the United States between April 1, 1994

139 TTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 96,217 kidney donors in the United States between April 1994 an

140 The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 200

141 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3.5 to 5.3 times

142 Living kidney donors in the United States who were obese at don

143 ata on all African-American and white living kidney donors in the United States who were registered i

144 average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized est

145 s with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.

146 d to provide this follow-up of former living kidney donors, including concerns that donor insurance w

147 As use of older kidney donors increases, overall survival among kidney t

148 ucted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies after

149 can American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed.

150 ealth outcomes among demographically diverse kidney donors is needed.

151 nderstanding the outcomes and risks for live kidney donors (LD) is increasingly important; this study

152 emographic characteristics with HL in living kidney donors (LD), living donor kidney transplant recip

153 strate that graft survival from older living kidney donors (LD; age>60 years) is worse than younger L

154 serve as a primary motivating factor, living kidney donors (LDs) also may expect to accrue some perso

155 undred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) trans

156 irical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both

157 We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016

158 an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs).

159 Over 5,000 living kidney donor nephrectomies are performed annually in the

160 r diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval

161 e donation are mostly for the recipient, but kidney donors often have improved quality of life as a r

162 Carefully screened prediabetic living kidney donors often revert to normal fasting glucose and

163 about the long-term outcomes of obese living kidney donors (OLKDs).

164 antation centers do not follow former living kidney donors on a long-term basis.

165 shed regarding the effect of advertising for kidney donors on transplant centers.

166 Living kidney donors, on the other hand, are at the increased r

167 w often and the reasons why potential living kidney donors opt out of the donor evaluation process fo

168 SAs were associated with 3.52 fewer expected kidney donors per 100 eligible deaths than non-Gulf Stat

169 Pediatric kidneys can augment the kidney donor pool and should not be considered ECK.

170 ation is an accepted method of expanding the kidney donor pool but there is little analysis of the pr

171 o improve graft function and to increase the kidney donor pool.

172 evaluated glomerular dynamics in a cohort of kidney donors prior to, within 1 year of, and several ye

173 ctive antibody > 20%, African American race, Kidney Donor Profile Index > 50%, cold ischemia time > 2

174 Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index >/= 85) was modeled with mult

175 rk (COIIN) to improve the use of donors with kidney donor profile index >50%.

176 ndidate condition were measured by using the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post

177 Kidneys with "high" Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) are often biopsied and

178 sed donor kidney allocation algorithm uses a Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) based on donor charact

179 The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) is a more precise dono

180 with expanded-criteria donors (ECD) and high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) kidneys are unknown.

181 Kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of the eventually acce

182 by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 3

183 han 60 years, accepting a kidney with a high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score could enable ear

184 Central to this system is the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), a metric intended to

185 ttle data on how kidney quality, measured by kidney donor profile index (KDPI), impacts KALT survival

186 kidney allocation policy that introduces the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), which gives scores of

187 oorer survival outcomes, as reflected in the kidney donor profile index (KDPI).

188 ing the donor pool with a maximum acceptable kidney donor profile index (KDPI).

189 recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0

190 There was considerable variation in Kidney Donor Profile Index among VCA donors (median, 27.

191 r policy changes such as the introduction of Kidney Donor Profile Index and implementation of the Kid

192 dney biopsy evaluation techniques, including Kidney Donor Profile Index and Remuzzi scoring, and anal

193 ecipients with KPS 40 to 50 and kidneys with Kidney Donor Profile Index as high as 99 have expected s

194 ling donor (female, aged 53 y) with a Living Kidney Donor Profile Index of 2, donated 2 days later to

195 with a Kidney Donor Risk Index of 0.61 and a Kidney Donor Profile Index of 3%, the waiting time was 4

196 an (range) donor age of 67 (29-83) years and Kidney Donor Profile Index of 93 (19-100).

197 e augmented model, we examined the impact of Kidney Donor Profile Index on posttransplant survivals f

198 achieved with expanded criteria donor, high Kidney Donor Profile Index or advanced age kidneys are p

199 ed age kidneys, we assessed the value of the Kidney Donor Profile Index policy, preimplantation biops

200 is "framed." Thus, labeling a kidney as high Kidney Donor Profile Index results in higher discard rat

201 This was despite the much worse kidney donor profile index scores assigned to the HCV-vi

202 ceived kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual dono

203 s were similar except for mean donor age and Kidney Donor Profile index scores.

204 eristic curve was approximately 0.87 for all Kidney Donor Profile Index thresholds and timeframes con

205 eive an offer for a deceased-donor kidney at Kidney Donor Profile Index thresholds of 0.2, 0.4, and 0

206 hich allocates kidneys in the top 20% of the kidney donor profile index to candidates in the top 20%

207 It is hoped that the kidney donor profile index will improve risk assessment

208 n from an HCV-viremic deceased donor (median kidney donor profile index, 53%) in May 2019 through Oct

209 5, 7 kidneys (mean donor age, 54.3 years and Kidney Donor Profile Index, 79%) that were initially pro

210 likely hepatitis C positive and had a higher kidney donor profile index.

211 Higher quality kidneys (per 10 units kidney donor profile index; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0

212 riteria donors (ECDs) and kidneys with >=85% kidney donor profile indexes (KDPIs) might have differen

213 l studies reporting outcomes in adult living kidney donors published from January 2011 to May 2017.

214 In a retrospective cohort of 407 living kidney donor-recipient pairs, donor and recipient HLA cl

215 we studied donor risk factors in 248 living kidney donor-recipient pairs.

216 ospective analysis of 125 consecutive living kidney donor/recipient pairs.

217 e the experiences and expectations of living kidney donors regarding follow-up and self-care after do

218 d New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry over 2004 to 2012.

219 Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual risk fa

220 tion obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney donors remains controversial.

221 hypertension, and obesity and a higher mean kidney donor risk index (all P<0.001).

222 Donor quality was determined by the kidney donor risk index (DRI), and was compared between

223 ese donors had lower quality kidneys (median Kidney Donor Risk Index (interquartile range) 1.9 (1.0)

224 gistrants (IRR, 1.01; P < 0.001), and higher kidney donor risk index (IRR, 1.98; P < 0.001) were asso

225 discard risk, for kidneys within a range of kidney donor risk index (KDRI) 1.4-2.1 that included bot

226 We propose a continuous kidney donor risk index (KDRI) for deceased donor kidney

227 The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) is a score applicable to

228 TAR files) to investigate the utility of the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) versus delayed graft func

229 s received higher-quality allografts (median kidney donor risk index 0.67 versus 0.90 for nondonors;

230 mine the benefit and challenges of using the Kidney Donor Risk Index as the sole decision tool.

231 A Kidney Donor Risk Index based on five donor variables pr

232 The model outperformed the Kidney Donor Risk Index in predicting discard (P < 0.001

233 n donor age rose from 26 to 43 years; median Kidney Donor Risk Index increased from 1.1 in 1994 to 1.

234 ed from 10 085 (92%) to 10 802 (98%) for low-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys and from 1257 (65%) to 1

235 s and from 1257 (65%) to 1737 (89%) for high-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys.

236 program for a chain-initiating kidney with a Kidney Donor Risk Index of 0.61 and a Kidney Donor Profi

237 A United Kingdom Kidney Donor Risk Index was derived from the model and v

238 Kidney donor risk index was used to assess donor charact

239 KDRI (Kidney donor risk index) was used to assess donor charac

240 ant dialysis duration, kidney cold ischemia, kidney donor risk index, and recipient hyperlipidemia.

241 Models controlled for kidney donor risk index, waitlist time, and kidney pumpi

242 Kidney quality was assessed by kidney donor risk index.

243 ts suggest that it may be time to revise the kidney donor risk index.

244 ation and to develop a clinically applicable Kidney Donor Risk Index.

245 Little is known about living kidney donors' satisfaction with life (SWL) after donati

246 rogate outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

247 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal with acce

248 scuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry.

249 Patients or living kidney donors simultaneously subjected to enhanced and u

250 cified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKDs).

251 or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in 15 of 1

252 eclampsia was more likely to be diagnosed in kidney donors than in matched nondonors with similar ind

253 cs that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, the 15-year projections of the risk of ES

254 Among healthy adult kidney donors, the single-nephron GFR was fairly constan

255 ients with a solitary kidney, such as living kidney donors, the surgical treatment of renal tumors ma

256 Even within programs that use unspecified kidney donors, there is a lack of consensus regarding ho

257 mation and obtain informed consent from live kidney donors to assist the transplant community in opti

258 sting for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety.

259 on showed profiles that ranged from those of kidney donors to those of advanced kidney disease.

260 We enrolled 21 adult living kidney donors to undergo detailed long-term clinical, ph

261 2%) were male, 113 (62.4%) received a living kidney donor transplant, and 40 (22.1%) had a graft fail

262 nic kidney disease toward receiving a living kidney donor transplant.

263 ribution to the ethnic differences in living kidney donor transplantation have not been adequately st

264 Living kidney donor transplantation, universally recognized as

265 s recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

266 and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

267 ty patients have lower probability of living kidney donor transplantation.

268 recipients bolster public support for living kidney donor transplantation; however, ethical dilemmas

269 ram has helped maintain the volume of living kidney donor transplants in Canada over the past 5 years

270 osocial and physical outcomes in unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKD

271 Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial burden i

272 profile of Australian and New Zealand living kidney donors using data from the Australia and New Zeal

273 ing trend in acceptance of very obese living kidney donors, variation across centers is significant.

274 Implementation of an ERP for living kidney donors was associated with reduced LOS and decrea

275 The survival of kidney donors was similar to that of controls who were m

276 We hypothesized that African Americans (AA) kidney donors were at greater risk for kidney failure.

277 Thirty-eight living kidney donors were included.

278 Unspecified kidney donors were more engaged in other altruistic beha

279 Unspecified kidney donors were older (54 years vs. 44 years; P<0.001

280 En bloc kidney donors were on average younger (12+/-10 vs. 24+/-

281 at most bills for follow-up visits of living kidney donors were paid by insurance companies, at a rat

282 Live kidney donors were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to LDN (n=5

283 total of 87 potential lung and 42 potential kidneys donors were identified.

284 dex (KDRI) is a score applicable to deceased kidney donors which reflects relative graft failure risk

285 re comparable to those derived from deceased kidney donors while improving upon several problems with

286 rs Evaluation (RELIVE) Study evaluated 8,951 kidney donors who donated between 1963 and 2007 at three

287 Kidney donors who donated from 2/2005 through 12/2015 (n

288 tal status and lifetime risk of ESRD in 3698 kidney donors who donated kidneys during the period from

289 Living kidney donors who felt well and confident about their he

290 ation of extraordinary altruists: altruistic kidney donors who volunteered to donate a kidney to a st

291 Older living kidney donors, who are carefully selected based on good

292 We analyzed 96 live kidney donors, who had anatomical asymmetry (>10% renal

293 Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same

294 The number of living kidney donors with no preexisting relationship to the re

295 Adult living kidney donors with obesity (body mass index, >=30 kg/m)

296 Potential living kidney donors with prediabetes are often excluded from d

297 rm and 1- and 5-year renal outcome of living kidney donors with preexistent hypertension.

298 reater magnitude of glomerulopenia in living kidney donors with preexisting hypertension justifies th

299 Living kidney donors with three separate risk factors (older ag

300 splant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases in liv