ライフサイエンスコーパス: liver transplant

1 sion, development of cirrhosis, and need for liver transplant.

2 owerful predictors of mortality after modern liver transplant.

3 out decreasing access for adults-using split liver transplant.

4 nonseroprotected children seen 1 year after liver transplant.

5 such as surgical resection of the tumor or a liver transplant.

6 ributable to alcohol use after receiving the liver transplant.

7 our strict criteria for utilization in split liver transplant.

8 sk cholecystectomy, resulted in a successful liver transplant.

9 d 2 generics in individuals with a kidney or liver transplant.

10 sex-based differences in HCC recurrence post-liver transplant.

11 ohol abstinence is typically required before liver transplant.

12 or clinicians who care for patients awaiting liver transplant.

13 ated with 21-day mortality in the absence of liver transplant.

14 this approach to HCV therapy before or after liver transplant.

15 ffect of sex on risk for HCC recurrence post-liver transplant.

16 e excluded if they received a deceased donor liver transplant.

17 as queried for all first-time isolated adult liver transplants.

18 for maximizing the number of deceased donor liver transplants.

19 e first-choice imaging technique to evaluate liver transplants.

20 patients with PSC-IBD we observed 173 first liver transplants.

21 ary cause of end-stage renal disease), for a liver transplant 14.3 (recipient serum ferritin >500 ug/

22 olved incarcerated inmates who were denied a liver transplant, 2 involved a constitutional claim for

23 nt Analysis and Research data, we identified livers transplanted 2010 to 2015 that could potentially

24 ere acute procedural success and survival to liver transplant (3 months after PCI).

25 .7%), hepatocellular carcinoma (17.5%), or a liver transplant (5.7%); whereas survivors were more lik

26 he waitlist (100,594) and those who received liver transplants (50,552).

27 Of 37 333 deceased donor livers transplanted, 6.3% met our strict criteria for ut

28 current efforts to eliminate disparities in liver transplant access.

29 s were responsible for 30% of deceased donor liver transplant activity in 2015; Austria only occasion

30 Liver transplant activity in 6 centers from these countr

31 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-or requiring liver transplant after SVR.

32 epatocellular carcinoma (HCC) - or requiring liver transplant after SVR.

33 r End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver transplant allocation was implemented as a fair an

34 MELD score-based liver transplant allocation was implemented as a fair an

35 To reduce the geographic heterogeneity in liver transplant allocation, the United Network of Organ

36 Four patients underwent liver transplant and 2 underwent liver-kidney transplant

37 patitis (NASH), have become a major cause of liver transplant and liver-associated death.

38 ity from variceal bleeding over time between liver transplant and nontransplant centers (p = 0.26).

39 issions with the outcomes comparable between liver transplant and nontransplant centers.

40 unteers to individuals receiving a kidney or liver transplant and provides evidence that generic prod

41 Endpoints were patient survival +/- liver transplant and/or recovery of liver function.

42 2), transplanted organ (0.33, 0.20-0.57, for liver transplants and 3.07, 1.96-4.81, for lung transpla

43 overdose (DO) donors in adult vs. pediatric liver transplants and the utilization of split liver tra

44 thy youth and those with a kidney, heart, or liver transplant, and identify moderating variables rela

45 ances in pediatric liver transplantation and liver transplant anesthesia.

46 irrhosis (AOR 2.00; 95% CI, 1.74, 2.31), and liver transplant (AOR 2.72; 95% CI, 1.87, 3.94) were mor

47 g that patients who are urgently requiring a liver transplant are prioritized.

48 In the United States, HIV-to-HIV kidney and liver transplants are currently permitted only under a r

49 She underwent a successful liver transplant at 7 months of age and is doing well at

50 ese were compared with 187 non-NRP DCD donor livers transplanted at the same two UK centers in the sa

51 adult patients registered for first elective liver transplant between April 2013 and December 2016.

52 ch database was evaluated for deceased donor liver transplants between 2006 and 2016 across 11 Organ

53 tent is effective and safe at resolving post liver transplant biliary anastomotic strictures.

54 In conclusion, molecular analysis of liver transplant biopsies detects rejection, has the pot

55 asured gene expression by microarrays in 235 liver transplant biopsies from 10 centers.

56 splant biopsies and could offer insights for liver transplant biopsies.

57 ess improvements in long-term survival after liver transplant by analyzing outcomes in transplant rec

58 R-NMP increased the number of deceased donor liver transplants by 20%.

59 Liver transplant candidacy determination can be contenti

60 included all cases that involved a denial of liver transplant candidacy in violation of constitutiona

61 There was consensus that every liver transplant candidate should be assessed at baselin

62 ill likely address disparities for pediatric liver transplant candidates and recipients by increasing

63 009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimate

64 We examined all nonstatus one adult liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2014.

65 Studies on opioid therapy in kidney and liver transplant candidates have suggested increased ris

66 Among pediatric liver transplant candidates in the US, children who died

67 population, the optimal management of obese liver transplant candidates remains undefined.

68 Our risk scoring system for extremely ill liver transplant candidates successfully stratified risk

69 Liver transplant candidates with advanced renal dysfunct

70 eriod before exception scores are granted to liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinom

71 Among 3852 pediatric liver transplant candidates, children who died or were d

72 e substantial long-term survival benefit for liver transplant candidates.

73 tritional and physical therapy in individual liver transplant candidates.

74 e substantial long-term survival benefit for liver transplant candidates.

75 -based disparity in waitlist mortality among liver transplant candidates.

76 in the cardiac risk assessment of kidney and liver transplant candidates.

77 In the United States, distance from liver transplant center correlates with worsened outcome

78 teracy, we measured the understandability of liver transplant center education websites and assessed

79 te), and geographic (eg, distance to closest liver transplant center) variables.

80 tion (SLT) in a combined pediatric and adult liver transplant center.

81 ted, coupled with variation between the 7 UK liver transplant centers in risk appetite.

82 Patients (84 774) were listed across 112 liver transplant centers.

83 ce becomes increasingly common, however, the liver transplant community is taking a fresh look at a f

84 ith DCDD from the Improving DCDD Outcomes in Liver Transplant consortium demonstrates significant dif

85 s been a notable reduction in the quality of livers transplanted, coupled with variation between the

86 Liver transplant data from the Austin Hospital, Melbourn

87 SRTR) database (1998-2016) (2) Single center liver transplant database (Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN).

88 r liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) at a single center to demonstrat

89 dict graft failure or primary nonfunction at liver transplant decision time assists utilization of sc

90 s study identified a potential biomarker for liver transplant donor graft quality.

91 Utilization of simple risk scores for liver transplant eligibility assessment leads to selecti

92 BB use in patients with cirrhosis undergoing liver transplant evaluation is associated with better sh

93 sequently, a staged approach of a sequential liver transplant followed by a HSCT was planned with her

94 imary study end point was survival without a liver transplant for 1 year after the procedure.

95 disease clinically considered for orthotopic liver transplant for different indications were enrolled

96 ducted an analysis of patients who underwent liver transplant for HCC in the United Network for Organ

97 A total of 12,711 patients underwent liver transplant for HCC: 2,909 (23%) women and 9,802 (7

98 Patients who receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ofte

99 We identified all children who underwent liver transplant for LFUE at a single quaternary childre

100 atched with controls (children who underwent liver transplant for metabolic liver disease).

101 GH treatment is not appropriate in rat liver transplant from BD donors, whereas EGF (throughout

102 as completed of recipients of a living donor liver transplant from January 1998 to January 2018 in th

103 hepatocellular carcinoma from 9.1% to 4.0%, liver transplants from 4.5% to 1.2%, and liver-related d

104 programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS-CoV-2 i

105 Adult liver transplants from DO donors increased from 2% in 20

106 m 2% in 2002 to 15% in 2017, while pediatric liver transplants from DO donors only increased from <1%

107 NOS database was reviewed for deceased donor liver transplants from March 2002 - December 2017.

108 Participants (N = 271) received a liver transplant >=1 year before enrollment and were sub

109 neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and orthotopic liver transplant has emerged as a promising option for u

110 ailable donor livers and patients awaiting a liver transplant has led transplant centers to accept su

111 was associated with a 25% lower risk of post-liver transplant HCC recurrence (95CI 0.57-0.99).

112 A cox-regression analysis for post-liver transplant HCC recurrence highlighted that even af

113 Women had significantly lower rates of post-liver transplant HCC recurrence than men (4.0 v.

114 uccessfully underwent a left-lobe orthotopic liver transplant; however, she developed a biliary leak

115 ns earlier can delay or prevent the need for liver transplant; however, treatment typically occurs la

116 patients receiving a kidney, heart, lung, or liver transplant in Norway from 1968 through 2012 using

117 ns inherent to planning for HSCT preceded by liver transplant in patients with primary immunodeficien

118 lant is the most common form of living donor liver transplant in the United States.

119 cholestasis (lethal in one and necessitating liver transplant in two).

120 edicted to become the leading indication for liver transplants in the US.

121 Compared with controls, livers transplanted into mHO-1 KO recipient mice had dec

122 on is unique, the clinical picture prompting liver transplant is not clear.

123 Liver transplant is the only definitive treatment.

124 further work on strategies to increase split liver transplant is warranted.

125 was to compare outcomes between living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transpl

126 s versus normal phenotype adult living-donor liver transplants (LDLTs).

127 patocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients on the liver transplant list.

128 There is debate whether simultaneous lung-liver transplant (LLT) long-term outcomes warrant alloca

129 care in acute liver failure (ALF), for which liver transplant (LT) can be lifesaving.

130 (HPS) using pulse oximetry is recommended in liver transplant (LT) candidates because mortality is in

131 Liver transplant (LT) candidates today are older, have g

132 equency of cardiac catheterization (CATH) in liver transplant (LT) candidates.

133 ported in the general population and in post-liver transplant (LT) cases in several regions, includin

134 gated whether equivalent outcomes to primary liver transplant (LT) could be achieved with liver retra

135 Early liver transplant (LT) for alcohol-associated disease (i.

136 olic steatohepatitis (NASH) is now a leading liver transplant (LT) indication.

137 Malignancy after liver transplant (LT) is a leading cause of mortality, b

138 ion, has been associated with increased post-liver transplant (LT) mortality.

139 A-CCM, and correlate presence of BA-CCM with liver transplant (LT) outcomes in this population.

140 ior to liver transplantation may affect post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes.

141 th hepatitis C virus (HCV) and improved post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes.

142 Yet, hepatitis C (HCV)-infected liver transplant (LT) patients occasionally achieve oper

143 dy/antibodies (DSA) is not well described in liver transplant (LT) patients undergoing immunosuppress

144 nd Transplantation Network recently approved liver transplant (LT) prioritization for patients with h

145 ractice settings: university hospital with a liver transplant (LT) program (UHLT, n = 148), non-unive

146 splant clinical course, which is crucial for liver transplant (LT) programs.

147 The AC group also had a significantly lower liver transplant (LT) rate (13.5% versus 59.0%, P < 0.00

148 A retrospective review of 588 adult liver transplant (LT) recipients (1999-2006) was perform

149 hown to enhance immunoregulatory profiles in liver transplant (LT) recipients (LTRs), mTOR-I therapy

150 Despite concerns that liver transplant (LT) recipients may be at increased ris

151 The aging of liver transplant (LT) recipients, the weighting of the m

152 tion and strength after training programs on liver transplant (LT) recipients, there is a lack of kno

153 and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) post-liver transplant (LT) remain poorly characterized.

154 ated liver disease be treated for HCV before liver transplant (LT) to eliminate the virus before surg

155 ged >=18 years with renal dysfunction on the liver transplant (LT) waiting list was obtained from Org

156 erican health care system; its effect on the liver transplant (LT) waitlist based on COVID-19 inciden

157 iver Frailty Index (LFI), is associated with liver transplant (LT) waitlist mortality.

158 s, we implemented an active protocol of cDCD liver transplant (LT) with normothermic regional perfusi

159 HIV/HCV-coinfected participants pre- or post-liver transplant (LT).

160 In the United States, nearly 30% of liver transplants (LT) are performed for hepatocellular

161 ve disease and poorer outcome as compared to liver transplant (LTx) recipients.

162 ve disease and poorer outcome as compared to liver transplant (LTx) recipients.

163 addition of RBV improves NK cell function in liver transplant (LTx) recipients.

164 aining to machine learning in hepatology and liver transplant medicine.

165 ati in individuals with a kidney (n = 35) or liver transplant (n = 36).

166 The weekly organ donation and liver transplant numbers over a 3-month period (Feb 17,

167 cal ventilator before transplantation, prior liver transplant, older recipient age, older donor age,

168 ngenital cardiac defects, who have undergone liver transplants, or who have acute lymphoblastic leuke

169 Donor hepatectomy time impairs liver transplant outcome.

170 Liver transplant outcomes continue to improve even for p

171 Our aim was to evaluate liver transplant outcomes involving donors with high mac

172 transplantation tolerance in a cohort of 17 liver transplant patients subjected to an independent, n

173 e percentage of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in liver transplant patients was stable in the study period

174 e immunosuppressive (IS) drugs in kidney and liver transplant patients without subsequent evidence of

175 and posttransplant infections in a cohort of liver transplant patients.

176 shown to predict transplant-free survival in liver transplant patients.

177 Our series includes 100 HOPE-treated liver-transplanted patients with an overall tumor-censor

178 f a prospectively maintained database of all liver transplants performed at our institution from 1998

179 a single-center retrospective cohort of 897 liver transplants performed between June 2009 and Septem

180 DLT comprises a very small percentage of all liver transplants performed in the United States, this d

181 rs in North America and comprises only 5% of liver transplants performed in the United States.

182 Of the 101 238 liver transplants performed, 61 were related to IBDI.

183 n biliary complications in a select national liver transplant population using the Vizient CDB/RM dat

184 w, we examine current practices in the obese liver transplant population, offer recommendations based

185 reports the experience of the Irish National Liver Transplant Programme with the Mayo Protocol.

186 f the 7 Eurotransplant countries with active liver transplant programs.

187 -19, and how it may impact hepatologists and liver transplant providers and their patients.

188 with a focus on its impact on hepatologists, liver transplant providers, patients with liver disease,

189 h only one case of TMAT, which occurred in a liver transplant recipient and resulted in death from bl

190 ity would significantly advance personalized liver transplant recipient care and management of immuno

191 port the clinical course and management of a liver transplant recipient on hemodialysis, who presente

192 gh macrosteatosis grafts in the obese modern liver transplant recipient population.

193 d by B. multivorans occurring in a pediatric liver transplant recipient who does not have cystic fibr

194 We describe a 57-year-old liver transplant recipient with decompensated graft cirr

195 outcomes of 7 renal transplant recipients, 1 liver transplant recipient, 1 heart transplant recipient

196 fied a population-based cohort of first-time liver transplant recipients (aged >=16 years) between 20

197 hown to enhance immunoregulatory profiles in liver transplant recipients (LTR), mTOR-I therapy might

198 of early readmissions and its predictors in liver transplant recipients (LTRs).

199 t of metabolic comorbidities specifically in liver transplant recipients are scarce, there is detaile

200 Pediatric liver transplant recipients arguably have the most to ga

201 MRI with low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine in liver transplant recipients at a single center.

202 l, data were collected from 1799 consecutive liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2002, and

203 Kidney and liver transplant recipients between May 2014 and August

204 portal blood samples obtained from 67 human liver transplant recipients both pre- [portal vein (PV)

205 iRNA) profiling in 318 serum samples from 69 liver transplant recipients enrolled in the Immune Toler

206 ents database was reviewed to identify adult liver transplant recipients from 2002 through 2016 with

207 d graft survival was significantly worse for liver transplant recipients from donors with ITP compare

208 ecipients from donors with ITP compared with liver transplant recipients from donors without ITP (64%

209 Centers with >30% of their liver transplant recipients hospitalized >/=30 days in t

210 sitive and recipient CMV-seronegative (D+R-) liver transplant recipients in the current era are incom

211 udy, HIV-positive to HIV-positive kidney and liver transplant recipients in the USA were examined for

212 Operationally tolerant pediatric liver transplant recipients maintain generally stable al

213 cipients between 2006-2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers to 69 39

214 ents between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69

215 In the United States, 5% of adult liver transplant recipients receive a graft donation aft

216 Among D+R- liver transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir as

217 nt randomized phase III study of 719 de novo liver transplant recipients showed that early everolimus

218 Liver transplant recipients suffer many postoperative co

219 pression might improve long-term outcomes in liver transplant recipients than IR-T-based immunosuppre

220 In liver transplant recipients the majority of circulating

221 tcome of 265 consecutive chronic hepatitis B liver transplant recipients treated with entecavir monot

222 IV-positive to HIV-positive kidney and eight liver transplant recipients were followed from March, 20

223 udy, HIV-positive to HIV-positive kidney and liver transplant recipients were followed in three hospi

224 single-center retrospective analysis of 207 liver transplant recipients who achieved MELD score of 4

225 We included consecutive adult liver transplant recipients who had their surgery betwee

226 transplantation in cohorts of high-risk D+R- liver transplant recipients who received either PET (n =

227 th a short course (in hospital only) HBIG in liver transplant recipients with HBV DNA less than 100 I

228 transplantation (CLKT) improves survival for liver transplant recipients with renal dysfunction; howe

229 transplantation (CLKT) improves survival for liver transplant recipients with renal dysfunction; howe

230 ntiviral prophylaxis in 205 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors age

231 l prophylaxis for high-risk CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, hi

232 Among CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with seropositive donors, th

233 ctively evaluated among pediatric kidney and liver transplant recipients, 12 months posttransplantati

234 Of the 326 included liver transplant recipients, 70 patients (21.5%) reached

235 y, among clinically and biochemically stable liver transplant recipients, a subset with histological

236 cipients and as digestive tract pathogens in liver transplant recipients, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

237 Among D+R- liver transplant recipients, PET was associated with the

238 For 326 liver transplant recipients, transplanted between 2000 a

239 roscopic approach has never been reported in liver transplant recipients.

240 (CKD) jeopardizes the long-term outcomes of liver transplant recipients.

241 This retrospective study included 282 HCC liver transplant recipients.

242 mine is a nonnephrotoxic imaging modality in liver transplant recipients.

243 prevalent cause of non-hepatic mortality in liver transplant recipients.

244 etermined if this is equally detrimental for liver transplant recipients.

245 the treatment of metabolic comorbidities in liver transplant recipients.

246 ommon aim of improving care and outcomes for liver transplant recipients.

247 PET or prophylaxis for 100 days in 205 D+R- liver transplant recipients.

248 lant indication and the ageing population of liver transplant recipients.

249 ipients, and as digestive tract pathogens in liver transplant recipients.

250 verall costs compared to prophylaxis in D+R- liver transplant recipients.

251 ated with allograft dysfunction in pediatric liver transplant recipients.

252 adherence to immunosuppression in pediatric liver transplant recipients.

253 the leading cause of mortality in kidney and liver transplant recipients.

254 providers, patients with liver disease, and liver transplant recipients.

255 lovir prophylaxis for CMV prevention in D+R- liver transplant recipients.

256 levels with postreperfusion damage in human liver transplant recipients.

257 %) prevailed as digestive tract pathogens in liver transplant recipients.

258 nd AT1R antibodies in 2 cohorts of pediatric liver transplant recipients: a stable control cohort wit

259 -Meier analyses were performed on first-time liver transplant registrants (n = 13 979) and recipients

260 All adult liver transplant registrants with NASH between 2004 and

261 = 0.861.001.17), death (aHR = 0.850.951.07), liver transplant registration (aHR = 0.580.971.61), and

262 aHR=0.861.001.17), death (aHR=0.850.951.07), liver transplant registration (aHR=0.580.971.61), and ci

263 ilure, and death) and hepatic complications (liver transplant registration and cirrhosis) among HCV+

264 ilure, and death) and hepatic complications (liver transplant registration and cirrhosis) among HCV+

265 Liver transplant registration for HCC increased signific

266 splantation Network (UNOS/OPTN) and European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) were included.

267 ent and Transplantation Network and European Liver Transplant Registry were included.

268 We compared, through the European Liver Transplant Registry, long-term liver transplantati

269 renal recovery (Renal Recovery Assessment at Liver Transplant [REVERSE]: high osteopontin [OPN] and t

270 The liver transplant risk score (LTRS) was developed to stra

271 015 and is composed of 20 leading kidney and liver transplant specialists from 9 countries across Eur

272 e medication adherence in children who had a liver transplant study (enrollment 2010-2013).

273 Herein we provide the views of a liver transplant surgeon and transplant hepatologist in

274 ing group comprised of 3 hepatologists and a liver transplant surgeon was tasked with a set of questi

275 Raw and adjusted recipient liver transplant survival were evaluated and compared be

276 We identified 5309 liver transplants that met our criteria.

277 Liver transplants that occurred between October 2012 and

278 ogy of cirrhosis, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) at liver transplant, tumor diameter, tumor pathology, and v

279 ely followed up after LT for HHT in the Lyon Liver Transplant Unit from 1993 to 2010, with a survival

280 We identified 14,796 adult liver transplant using donors 60-year-old suitable for a

281 We assessed patients who dropped out of the liver transplant waiting list between 2000 and 2016 in a

282 mation about survival after dropout from the liver transplant waiting list.

283 nfants and 1 in 20 older children die on the liver transplant waiting list.

284 gistry, we examined temporal trends in adult liver transplant waitlist (WL) registrants and recipient

285 On the other hand, the high mortality on the liver transplant waitlist and the organ shortage has obl

286 ients for adults listed and removed from the liver transplant waitlist from 2002 to 2017.

287 he Share 35 allocation policy was to improve liver transplant waitlist mortality, targeting high MELD

288 iatric transplant rates and reduce pediatric liver transplant waitlist mortality.

289 Among patients new to the liver transplant waitlist or undergoing liver transplant

290 The liver transplant waitlist size will remain static over t

291 mortality among patients with ACLF-3 on the liver transplant waitlist, even among those with lower M

292 transplant centers may improve access to the liver transplant waitlist.

293 fies disenfranchised candidates on the adult liver transplant waitlist.

294 Time from diagnosis to liver transplant was required to be more than 1 year.

295 The time of TCMR-free after liver transplant was statistically reduced in high-load

296 .001) those in the N-SLK group who underwent liver transplant were significantly less likely to die p

297 fspring to parent and 241 nonoffspring donor liver transplants were included in the analysis.

298 percentage of pediatric patients undergoing liver transplant who were up to date for their age on im

299 tabase identified 12,958 patients listed for liver transplants with HCC exception points from 2006 to

300 with a fatal metabolic stroke 11 years post liver transplant without any biochemical evidence of dec