ライフサイエンスコーパス: living @1 donor

1 e been developed to reduce morbidity for the living renal donor.

2 ucted a prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors.

3 of the psychosocial evaluation for eligible living organ donors.

4 ursed by Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors.

5 n current psychosocial screening programs of living organ donors.

6 adient-echo MRA with surgical findings in 15 living renal donors.

7 ography and angiography in the assessment of living renal donors.

8 ample that is not representative of all U.S. living kidney donors.

9 isparities in medical conditions occur among living kidney donors.

10 genetic testing in the screening process for living kidney donors.

11 can lead to misclassification of many older living kidney donors.

12 to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

13 because of the short waiting time and use of living kidney donors.

14 lomerular filtration rate (GFR) in potential living kidney donors.

15 rams minimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors.

16 to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors.

17 of well-being and a boost in self-esteem for living kidney donors.

18 phy in determining renal vascular anatomy in living kidney donors.

19 ant centers are opposed to using children as living kidney donors.

20 sing body composition-related kidney risk in living kidney donors.

21 ies remain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.

22 rmed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors.

23 ay predict long-term renal outcomes in white living kidney donors.

24 l cortex volume [RCV]) were performed in 101 living kidney donors.

25 perceptions of current voters toward paying living kidney donors.

26 ation rate, eGFR) of the remaining kidney in living kidney donors.

27 ow pilot studies of financial incentives for living kidney donors.

28 e, which might be alleviated by compensating living kidney donors.

29 he relatively benign renal outcomes for most living kidney donors.

30 tioning at 5 years as that of a graft from a living related donor.

31 ted, or nonhuman leukocyte antigen identical living-related donor.

32 fts were from a cadaver, and 14% were from a living-related donor.

33 similar concerns are important to potential living related donors.

34 nt of both transplant patients and potential living related donors.

35 We performed six SPKs from living-related donors.

36 apse and received a kidney transplant from a living-unrelated donor.

37 d in recipients of 50% segmental grafts from living, related donors?

38 health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and yea

39 Among 2876 living kidney donors, 1132 had short-term follow-up at a

40 ndomized trials and observational studies in living kidney donors 18 years or older.

41 tabase linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from

42 Among 90 013 living kidney donors, 2001-2016, proportions who were ve

43 From a population of 3,698 living kidney donors, 257 donors were randomly selected

44 king for their views and practices regarding living kidney donors; 44% of these organizations respond

45 t the long-term outcomes of African American living kidney donors (AALKDs).

46 leukocyte antigen-mismatched, haploidentical living-related donors after modified nonmyeloablative co

47 most to the variation in willingness to be a living related donor, although race contributed most to

48 We analyzed a total of 30 living kidney donor and recipient pairs, with a follow-u

49 A total of 2132 living kidney donors and 2014 nondonor controls responde

50 of APOL1 risk alleles among African American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for A

51 ey function is critical in the evaluation of living kidney donors and higher donor glomerular filtrat

52 In this cohort study of living kidney donors and nondonors with the same follow-

53 Living kidney donors and their corresponding recipients

54 Survey of previous directed living kidney donors and their recipients in a single Ca

55 (SEP) may influence hypothetical and actual living kidney donors and where appropriate, summarizes t

56 recipients of first kidney transplants (six living related donors and eight cadavers).

57 stimated waiting time, the availability of a living kidney donor, and previous hematological treatmen

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

59 KTRs) (together: CKD population), and in 447 living kidney donors, and 385 healthy controls (together

60 increased risk of ESRD has been reported for living kidney donors, and appears to be higher for those

61 y failure undergoing kidney transplantation, living kidney donors, and healthy volunteers.

62 to prevent acquisition of HIV by prospective living organ donors, and to conduct HIV antibody testing

63 rgans, 29 were ex vivo reduced size, 33 were living-related donor, and 36 were in situ split-liver al

64 ence up to 50%, an increased recurrence with living-related donors, and the rarity of graft loss due

65 With prudent selection, the use of obese living kidney donors appears safe in the short term.

66 Recent evidence suggests that living kidney donors are at an increased risk of end-sta

67 Living kidney donors are carefully screened, but despite

68 While cautious criteria for selection of living kidney donors are credited for favorable outcomes

69 Data regarding health outcomes among living kidney donors are lacking, especially among nonwh

70 The acceptance criteria used for living kidney donors are largely theoretical, as they ar

71 Living kidney donors are screened for transmissible dise

72 The motives and decision making of potential living liver donors are critical areas for transplant cl

73 been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known.

74 As cadaver and living unrelated donors are equally genetically disparat

75 tify a total of 369 patients with CKD and 46 living kidney donors as healthy controls.

76 or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH]) and living liver donors as healthy controls (HC).

77 Societal plight driving caution about living kidney donor assessment was emphasized in the con

78 regarding the actual change in the number of living kidney donors associated with voucher programs an

79 We evaluated 1638 living kidney donors at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ sites) an

80 ransplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephro

81 We identified 1388 living kidney donors at the Mayo Clinic and the Clevelan

82 Thus, we surveyed 77 prospective living liver donors at the point of donation evaluation

83 es regarding the evaluation and selection of living kidney donors based on metabolic, cardiovascular,

84 FR], urine protein, and microalbumin) in 148 living kidney donors before and 6 to 12 months after nep

85 trast-enhanced computed tomography images of living kidney donors before donation.

86 One thousand six hundred sequential living kidney donor biopsies were performed between 2001

87 higher (P < 0.01) for cadaveric donor versus living related donor, blacks versus whites, age >12 vers

88 e called for more comprehensive follow-up of living kidney donors, both for the donor's benefit and t

89 increased 'hypothetical' willingness to be a living kidney donor but with marked heterogeneity in the

90 y cancer as the leading cause of death among living kidney donors, but information on the burden of c

91 Intestinal transplants from living-related donors can be lifesaving for selected pat

92 o conventional methods for evaluation of the living renal donor candidate.

93 s cost, discomfort, and inconvenience to the living renal donor candidate.

94 ss practices used to assess kidney health in living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rat

95 We examined 769 living kidney donor candidates with 24-hour urine collec

96 uation of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increas

97 EQ), designed to measure the expectations of living kidney donor candidates.

98 ghlights the relevance of GFR assessment for living kidney donor candidates.

99 essment is a key aspect in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates; however, data on perform

100 e the projected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance

101 rocure organs based on a document of gift (a living will, donor card, or driver's license).

102 Forty-two living kidney donors (Caucasian; 76% female [n=32]; 53 +

103 of partial or total nephrectomy in previous living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors.

104 lly and psychologically screened unspecified living kidney donors completed the Symptom Checklist bef

105 facilities for long-term costs generated by living kidney donors contributes to the problem was exam

106 ut how well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the str

107 and 116 nonobese (body mass index<27 kg/m2) living kidney donors donating at a single institution be

108 ective cohort study of 924 standard-criteria living kidney donors enrolled before surgery and a concu

109 sis, we compare the outcomes of the first 60 living kidney donors enrolled in our enhanced recovery p

110 retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to

111 ribe transplant professional perspectives on living kidney donor evaluation in Asia.

112 gh genetic testing can be a valuable tool in living kidney donor evaluation, its overall benefit in d

113 roviding an overview of current practices in living kidney donor evaluation, our study highlights the

114 ng research on individuals who withdraw from living kidney donor evaluation.

115 The first graft from a living-related donor failed and was followed by a second

116 any jurisdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have bee

117 genotyped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association

118 nsplantation, the vast majority (81%) prefer living related donors for pediatric recipients.

119 frican American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African American recipients.

120 We report here on two cases in which the living-related donors for children with Alagille's syndr

121 y system of family members who are potential living-related donors for patients with this condition.

122 Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy

123 reimbursement from insurance providers for a living kidney donor from 47% to 85% of the amount billed

124 ansplantation Network registrations for 4650 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2007 with administrati

125 We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to t

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

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

128 The study population consisted of 3074 living kidney donors from 28 centers during 2004 and 200

129 A total of 5065 living kidney donors from 3 large transplant centers in

130 Hemorrhagic deaths of living kidney donors from failure of vascular clips used

131 ospective study of 4650 persons who had been living kidney donors from October 1987 through July 2007

132 ared 24 h before and after nephrectomy in 38 living kidney donors from the REnal Protection Against I

133 Conclusion In living kidney donors, GFR measured based on iomeprol cle

134 the first report of the successful use of a living-related donor graft for an orthotopic liver trans

135 The use of living-related donor grafts has produced excellent resul

136 At the time of survey, the 2132 living kidney donors had a mean (SD) age of 67.1 (8.9) y

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

138 Data regarding gout/hyperuricemia in living kidney donors has remained scarce until now.

139 wn "reduced" livers, split liver grafts, and living-related donors has provided more organs for pedia

140 Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage

141 Living kidney donors have been regarded as those people

142 d-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for young living kidney donors have conflicted with the knowledge

143 Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket

144 se data show that attitudes toward unrelated living kidney donors have gradually become much more lib

145 Previous studies of living kidney donors have not specifically examined subs

146 In summary, hypertensive living kidney donors have similar outcome in terms of bl

147 The overall evidence suggests that living kidney donors have survival similar to that of no

148 Intestinal transplants using living-related donors have rarely been attempted, and th

149 perience, and demographic characteristics to living kidney donors' homes between 2010 and 2012.

150 No living kidney donor in our cohort received a partial or

151 ransplantation Network identifiers for 4,650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to admi

152 Transplantation Network identifiers for 4650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to admi

153 ation Network (OPTN) registry data for 4,007 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2008 with Medicare billi

154 We reviewed the predonation charts for all living kidney donors in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and

155 The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the d

156 We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 a

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

158 Living kidney donors in the United States who were obese

159 with data on all African-American and white living kidney donors in the United States who were regis

160 ed the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personali

161 jections with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.

162 All living renal donors in the OPTN database were cross-chec

163 atients who received kidney transplants from living unrelated donors in the United States from 1995 t

164 entified to provide this follow-up of former living kidney donors, including concerns that donor insu

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

166 Of 105 volunteer, adult, potential living-renal donors interested in the laparoscopic appro

167 antation of the right lobe of a liver from a living adult donor into an adult recipient has been perf

168 We conducted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies

169 splant candidate's only medically-acceptable living kidney donor is ABO incompatible, the most common

170 therapeutic options for patients whose only living kidney donor is ABO incompatible, with a specific

171 ng African American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed.

172 technique in the preoperative evaluation of living renal donors is accurate even when images are rea

173 We present a case of living, related-donor kidney transplantation during the

174 t and demographic characteristics with HL in living kidney donors (LD), living donor kidney transplan

175 s demonstrate that graft survival from older living kidney donors (LD; age>60 years) is worse than yo

176 nt may serve as a primary motivating factor, living kidney donors (LDs) also may expect to accrue som

177 Living-related donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an

178 Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD

179 Living kidney donors (LKDs) are at increased risk of chr

180 Living kidney donors (LKDs) undertake a complex and mult

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

182 ain is an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs).

183 performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted

184 dure that continues to be offered to healthy living liver donor (LLD).

185 In contrast, for living related donor (LRD) grafts there was no significa

186 ently, we make thorough attempts to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (

187 valuation of renal structure and function in living renal donor (LRD) candidates.

188 sies were obtained from cadaveric (n=23) and living-related donor (LRD) (n=10) liver transplants befo

189 , we embarked on a study of DBMC infusion in living-related donor (LRD) kidney transplant recipients.

190 ith concomitantly transplanted recipients of living-related donor (LRD) kidneys and donor marrow infu

191 A successful kidney transplant from a living-related donor (LRD) remains the most effective re

192 usion after transplantation of 13 CAD and 12 living-related donor (LRD) renal allografts were examine

193 ent of CAN in recipients of cadaveric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (

194 ymphocytes and iliac crest bone marrow of 11 living-related-donor (LRD) renal transplant recipients,

195 to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (LURD) before proceeding with a c

196 veric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (LURD) transplants at their cente

197 Living-unrelated donors (LURD) have been shown to yield

198 Preventing complications for living kidney donors must be paramount in addressing end

199 Collected data for the living organ donor must include the nationality, the nat

200 All surgeons operating on a living organ donor must select vascular control techniqu

201 ty of life (HR-QOL) in anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLDs).

202 arrival rates of candidate/donor pairs and (living) nondirected donors (NDDs), and delay time from e

203 Over 5,000 living kidney donor nephrectomies are performed annually

204 ectal surgery, splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures conside

205 on rectopexy), splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for mo

206 of a large group of obese (ObD) and nonobese living kidney donors (NObD).

207 Hepatic steatosis, a common finding in living liver donors, not only influences the outcome of

208 Carefully screened prediabetic living kidney donors often revert to normal fasting gluc

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

210 transplantation centers do not follow former living kidney donors on a long-term basis.

211 Living kidney donors, on the other hand, are at the incr

212 splant community needs to be watchful of the living unrelated donor operation.

213 ding how often and the reasons why potential living kidney donors opt out of the donor evaluation pro

214 Living related donor organs had a significantly better 5

215 Five consecutive living related donor pediatric renal transplants were re

216 se intensify the demand for expansion of the living-kidney-donor pool.

217 fety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population.

218 The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors (PRELOD) was launched in the provinc

219 His willing donor (female, aged 53 y) with a Living Kidney Donor Profile Index of 2, donated 2 days l

220 sons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actu

221 This article reviews aspects of the Living Unrelated Donor program and development of deceas

222 vational studies reporting outcomes in adult living kidney donors published from January 2011 to May

223 is a lack of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL).

224 allograft recipients with cadaveric (89%) or living (11%) donors received 2 mg of sirolimus (troughs>

225 living unrelated and two HLA haploidentical living-related donor recipient pairs, whereas unidirecti

226 In a retrospective cohort of 407 living kidney donor-recipient pairs, donor and recipient

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

228 through an exchange arrangement between two living kidney donor-recipient pairs.

229 ed a prospective analysis of 125 consecutive living kidney donor/recipient pairs.

230 ratios were higher in cadaveric donor versus living related donor recipients (15.7 + 2.8 vs. 8.8 + 1.

231 Whereas none of the HAT-treated living related donor recipients had a rejection episode,

232 f 16 (25%) living-related versus none of the living-unrelated donors' recipients recurred.

233 describe the experiences and expectations of living kidney donors regarding follow-up and self-care a

234 alia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry over 2004 to 2012.

235 Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual

236 re-donation obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney donors remains controversial.

237 However, genetic testing on asymptomatic living kidney donors remains fraught with many challenge

238 ients of one haplotype matched recipients of living, related donor renal allografts selected to contr

239 These data suggest that living-related donor renal transplantation with steroid-

240 was conducted in recipients of cadaveric or living-related donor renal transplants.

241 gnificantly greater in cadaver compared with living kidney donors, respectively.

242 ents received whole livers, and two received living-related donor right liver lobes.

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

244 s a surrogate outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

245 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal wi

246 ould discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ances

247 Patients or living kidney donors simultaneously subjected to enhance

248 erance in clinical islet transplantation and living-related donor solid organ transplantation.

249 However, for living donors, donor source affects outcome.

250 significantly more vertebral fractures among living kidney donors than among controls (SIR, 1.42; 95%

251 ension or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in

252 For patients with a solitary kidney, such as living kidney donors, the surgical treatment of renal tu

253 Although AAs comprised 14.3% of all living kidney donors, they constituted 44% of donors rea

254 In the setting of multiple potential living kidney donors, this quantitative tool may facilit

255 outperformed the MDRD equation in potential living renal donors; this model could be used to estimat

256 erular structure should be derived only from living kidney donor tissues.

257 etic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety.

258 We enrolled 21 adult living kidney donors to undergo detailed long-term clini

259 ntrols with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by

260 psied kidney samples from patients and seven living transplant donors (to serve as controls).

261 Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure th

262 09 (60.2%) were male, 113 (62.4%) received a living kidney donor transplant, and 40 (22.1%) had a gra

263 th chronic kidney disease toward receiving a living kidney donor transplant.

264 ir contribution to the ethnic differences in living kidney donor transplantation have not been adequa

265 ortion of kidney paired donation-facilitated living kidney donor transplantation in the United States

266 Living kidney donor transplantation, universally recogni

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

268 towards recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

269 atients and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

270 ts for recipients bolster public support for living kidney donor transplantation; however, ethical di

271 PD program has helped maintain the volume of living kidney donor transplants in Canada over the past

272 Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial b

273 Thirty-six living liver donors underwent MRC, and subsequently righ

274 Thirty-five living renal donors underwent preoperative contrast mate

275 e risk profile of Australian and New Zealand living kidney donors using data from the Australia and N

276 kidney transplant results are improved with living unrelated donor utilization.

277 declining trend in acceptance of very obese living kidney donors, variation across centers is signif

278 vo disease according to the transplant type (living related donor vs. cadaver, P=NS).

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

280 ey data from NSODAP, willingness to become a living organ donor was associated with knowledge, percep

281 The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors was launched in the province of Onta

282 A review of 100 living-liver donors was performed to evaluate the perisu

283 To reduce the morbidity of living kidney donors we introduced ketorolac-based analg

284 insurance companies currently view and treat living kidney donors, we mailed a survey to the medical

285 Thirty-eight living kidney donors were included.

286 find that most bills for follow-up visits of living kidney donors were paid by insurance companies, a

287 one haplotype-matched renal transplants from living related donors were studied to determine the asso

288 educed-size grafts, of which three were from living-related donors, were used.

289 age have focused on increasing the number of living organ donors, which in 2001 for the first time ex

290 Living kidney donors who felt well and confident about t

291 The records of 716 potential living renal donors who underwent conventional arteriogr

292 Older living kidney donors, who are carefully selected based o

293 The number of living kidney donors with no preexisting relationship to

294 Adult living kidney donors with obesity (body mass index, >=30

295 Potential living kidney donors with prediabetes are often excluded

296 hort-term and 1- and 5-year renal outcome of living kidney donors with preexistent hypertension.

297 t the greater magnitude of glomerulopenia in living kidney donors with preexisting hypertension justi

298 Living kidney donors with three separate risk factors (o

299 splants from HLA single-haplotype mismatched living related donors, with the use of a nonmyeloablativ

300 ng transplant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases