ライフサイエンスコーパス: liver donor

1 n PBGs were isolated from EHBT obtained from liver donors.

2 d long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors.

3 the vascular and biliary variations in 3035 liver donors.

4 , as they comprised the majority of deceased liver donors.

5 prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors.

6 social" screening items of living kidney and liver donors.

7 There has been a drastic decrease in liver donors.

8 impact the availability of suitable deceased liver donors.

9 ation was observed among multiple kidney and liver donors.

10 ons and matched adjacent normal pairs, and 3 liver donors.

11 count for an increasing portion of potential liver donors.

12 ing donors: 35 RL liver donors and 45 LL/LLS liver donors.

13 plications in RL liver donors than in LL/LLS liver donors.

14 erienced more postoperative pain than LL/LLS liver donors.

15 rence in Clavien grade 2 complications in RL liver donors.

16 n, there is little comparable information on liver donors.

17 omy can be performed safely in healthy adult liver donors.

18 ti-HBc-positive donors have been excluded as liver donors.

19 life using both cadaveric and living-related liver donors.

20 In potential liver donors, 100 consecutive hepatic CT angiograms were

21 cations in RL liver donors (51%) than LL/LLS liver donors (20%).

22 were performed in 44 consecutive right lobe liver donors (25 men, 19 women; mean age, 37 years).

23 No kidneys were procured from 8% of liver donors, 3% of heart donors, and 3% of lung donors.

24 ere was a higher rate of complications in RL liver donors (51%) than LL/LLS liver donors (20%).

25 f normal saline in 143 consecutive potential liver donors (81 men and 62 women; mean age, 37 years);

26 70-92 (n = 1043) were compared with average liver donors (ALDs) aged 18-69 (n = 15,878) and ideal li

27 A consensus has been reached that liver donor allocation should be based primarily on live

28 ) in 2002 represented a fundamental shift in liver donor allocation to recipients with the highest ac

29 ts, we evaluated the immune response in a BD liver donor and compared it to that of a control group.

30 The inclusion of a combined liver donor and recipient T2D PRS significantly improved

31 We studied 80 living donors: 35 RL liver donors and 45 LL/LLS liver donors.

32 aluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondire

33 e further examined characteristics of living liver donors and identified factors potentially associat

34 udied the consequences of genetic effects of liver donors and recipients on PTDM outcomes, focusing o

35 were measured intraoperatively in right lobe liver donors and recipients with electromagnetic flow pr

36 Given the shortage of liver donors and the development of techniques for parti

37 resonance imaging (MRI) in living right lobe liver donors and the recipients of these grafts.

38 id the identification of high-risk steatotic liver donors and to evaluate hepatic injury in the posto

39 n arterial graft procured from the cadaveric liver donor, and arterial patency was verified with intr

40 alized by bone marrow transplantation in the liver donor, and the lack of liver-derived antigen-prese

41 ives and decision making of potential living liver donors are critical areas for transplant clinician

42 Those who wish to be anonymous live liver donors are warned of the potential negative psycho

43 core the distinctiveness of anonymous living liver donors as a patient population.

44 alcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH]) and living liver donors as healthy controls (HC).

45 ns for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

46 Thus, we surveyed 77 prospective living liver donors at the point of donation evaluation using s

47 represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients.

48 rement records for 1013 consecutive deceased liver donors between 2001 and 2008 were reviewed.

49 T2D PRS in liver donors, but not in kidney donors, was an independe

50 The authors identified all living right-lobe liver donor candidates who underwent CT cholangiography

51 DBD and DDL cases per million people (pmp), liver donor conversion rate (LDCR), and population and e

52 A shortage of donors has extended liver donor criteria, including aged or steatotic livers

53 In living potential liver donors, CT cholangiography enables significantly b

54 well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the strongest

55 Mortality of live liver donors does not differ from that of healthy, match

56 ine prior to CT cholangiography in potential liver donors does not increase bile duct caliber or impr

57 Elderly liver donors (ELDs) represent a possible expansion of th

58 ective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 w

59 xplore whether a sample of 26 anonymous live liver donors experience a unique relationship with their

60 Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity cost

61 Preparing anonymous living liver donors for different types of cosmetic issues rela

62 Hepatic bile was collected from eight liver donors (four with normal and four with steatotic g

63 If a potential liver donor has TTP listed on medical history, attempts

64 The dearth of deceased liver donors has created a supply demand gap, necessitat

65 Although the number of deceased potential liver donors has increased, overall liver utilization am

66 Approximately 25% of liver donors have complications immediately postoperativ

67 Previous studies of healthy live-liver donors have suggested that complete liver regenera

68 ors (ALDs) aged 18-69 (n = 15,878) and ideal liver donors (ILDs) aged 18-39 (n = 6842).

69 ve mortality or acute liver failure for live liver donors in the United States and avoid selection or

70 We followed up 4111 live liver donors in the United States between April 1994 and

71 The risk of early death among live liver donors in the United States is 1.7 per 1000 donors

72 rs, who represent nearly 40% of all deceased liver donors in the United States, the calculation of MM

73 e in inactive carriers of HBV versus healthy liver donors, including in the context of diverse HBsAg

74 The annual number of deceased potential liver donors increased post-AC (from 10 423 to 12 259),

75 Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discus

76 ming living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to comp

77 at continues to be offered to healthy living liver donor (LLD).

78 onsent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipien

79 themes were living donation, use of marginal liver donors, machine preservation, disease-specific imm

80 With the growing shortage of available liver donors, many donors with risk factors that would h

81 Psychiatric assessment and monitoring of liver donors may help to understand and prevent such tra

82 the immunological response in a brain death liver donor model and analysed the effects of thalidomid

83 Liver tissue was obtained from healthy liver donors (n = 5) and from patients with PSC (n = 20)

84 Liver donors (n=8) were 11-66 years old; half were >50 y

85 ife (HR-QOL) in anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLDs).

86 epatic steatosis, a common finding in living liver donors, not only influences the outcome of liver t

87 ty-specific data from 10,689 adult cadaveric liver donors obtained from the United Network for Organ

88 and may not constitute optimal use of scarce liver donor organs.

89 itigating I/R injury, and thus expanding the liver donor pool for clinical transplantation.

90 Increasing the liver donor pool, especially among minorities, will requ

91 e method of choice for expanding the cadaver liver donor pool.

92 method of choice for expanding the cadaveric liver donor pool.

93 e significantly underrepresented in the U.S. liver donor population.

94 ecifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population.

95 In contrast, irradiation of the LEW liver donor prevented the spontaneous acceptance by DA r

96 Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short t

97 ck of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL).

98 We prospectively studied kidney and liver donor-recipient pairs to determine if donor viral

99 ime points were obtained from 6 HCV-positive liver donor/recipient pairs from the National Institute

100 nancy, body mass index, serum creatinine and liver donor risk index.

101 icit, incidence of female donors, kidney and liver donor risk indices, kidney cold ischemia, and infe

102 allele match between the recipient and their liver donor suggests that HLA class I-restricted mechani

103 This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection

104 there were more grade 2 complications in RL liver donors than in LL/LLS liver donors.

105 used to increase the pool of potential live liver donors that are currently excluded because of the

106 December 31, 2019 (n = 200 816) and deceased liver donors that were registered between the same time

107 Eight different potential liver donors then underwent conventional MR cholangiogra

108 Prioritizing allocation of smaller liver donors to smaller candidates may help overcome thi

109 ter transplantation) in transplanted aortas (liver donor-type) harvested from animals in group III.

110 ed to identify studies comparing outcomes of liver donors undergoing ODH, laparoscopic-assisted donor

111 Eight living potential liver donors underwent iodipamide meglumine-enhanced CT

112 RL liver donors underwent longer surgeries and experienced

113 Thirty-six living liver donors underwent MRC, and subsequently right lobec

114 The LEW liver donor was treated by TBI (10 gray) 7 days before t

115 Long-term mortality of live liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donor

116 A review of 100 living-liver donors was performed to evaluate the perisurgical

117 Deceased potential liver donors were defined as deceased donors from whom a

118 with cirrhosis with and without PVT and from liver donors were histologically analyzed.

119 To address this, live liver donors were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient

120 and foreign-born donors (P=0.001); 58.9% of liver donors were male (P=0.001).

121 -binding lectin (MBL2) gene polymorphisms of liver donors were significantly associated with bacteria

122 xtrahepatic biliary atresia and 11 controls (liver donors) were studied.

123 es per donor were collected for all accepted liver donors with at least 1 associated fee during the s

124 We report that although treatment of ACI liver donors with lethal irradiation does not lead to pr

125 rospective study, we evaluated 50 "marginal" liver donors with pre-procurement abdominal ultrasounds

126 urrent setting of organ shortage, brain-dead liver donors with recent liver trauma (RLT) represent a