ライフサイエンスコーパス: pancreas graft

1 ction); 6 recipients died with a functioning pancreas graft.

2 ienced immediate function of both kidney and pancreas grafts.

3 uential in situ procurement of the liver and pancreas grafts.

4 itoneally and contralaterally to right-sided pancreas grafts.

5 t from expected for liver, kidney, lung, and pancreas grafts.

6 oven a sensitive tool in the surveillance of pancreas grafts.

7 determine causes and risk factors for TF of pancreas grafts.

8 Of the 20 pancreas grafts, 15 are functioning, 3 thrombosed, but 2

9 Of 61 pancreas grafts, 51 are currently functioning; in 7 reci

10 Of 75 pancreas grafts, 64 are currently functioning; in 5 reci

11 Of the 914 pancreas grafts, 643 (70.3%) continue to function (mean

12 Two pancreas grafts (7%) and one kidney graft (3%) were lost

13 d out safely with 5-year patient (87.5%) and pancreas graft (75.0%) survival.

14 In recipients of enterically drained pancreas grafts, a transcystoscopic biopsy cannot be don

15 Five patients who lost their pancreas graft after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transp

16 aparoscopic biopsy of an enterically drained pancreas graft, after a percutaneous biopsy was unsucces

17 Only one pancreas graft and one kidney graft were lost (in two di

18 Models for 1-year pancreas graft and patient survival yielded C statistics

19 e analyzed based on geographic source of the pancreas graft and the type of prospective crossmatch pe

20 comparing (1) locally procured and imported pancreas grafts and (2) grafts procured by a team from o

21 performing well, with functioning kidney and pancreas grafts and no evidence of recurrent PV intersti

22 er rescue allocation type regarding patient, pancreas graft, and kidney graft survival.

23 Overall kidney graft, pancreas graft, and patient survival were compared.

24 ation type considering survival of patients, pancreas grafts, and kidney grafts.

25 management of IPMN and adenocarcinoma in the pancreas graft appears congruent to that of the native p

26 11 patients are alive, and 10/11 kidney and pancreas grafts are functioning with a mean follow-up of

27 Pancreas grafts are still associated with the highest su

28 Pancreas graft biopsies are now used routinely for the d

29 Until now, only three types of pancreas graft biopsies have been described: percutaneou

30 Percutaneous pancreas graft biopsy has been reported in a few small s

31 We conclude that laparoscopic pancreas graft biopsy is a safe and effective method for

32 omputed tomography, autoantibody titers, and pancreas graft biopsy were identified as adjunctive stra

33 d over the last decade, more than 10% of all pancreas grafts continue to be lost due to technical rea

34 the Y graft used to revascularize the whole pancreas graft developed in 2 recipients of simultaneous

35 bA1c) levels are often obtained in potential pancreas graft donors to assess the overall long-term fu

36 Edema of the pancreas graft during rejection impairs capillary perfus

37 r ascent and diminished maximum intensity in pancreas grafts during rejection, with significantly red

38 ld standard in the differential diagnosis of pancreas graft dysfunction.

39 become another valuable tool for diagnosing pancreas graft dysfunction.

40 emerged as a strong independent predictor of pancreas graft failure (hazard ratio 4.66, p < 0.001).

41 Early pancreas graft failure (hazard ratio [HR] 3.00, 95% conf

42 mortality model, increased age (P<0.001) and pancreas graft failure (P<0.001) were associated with an

43 .02), renal graft failure (RR 2.41; P=0.05), pancreas graft failure (RR 3.66; P=0.01), and a trend to

44 Increased pancreas graft failure after delayed endocrine function

45 Early pancreas graft failure after simultaneous pancreas and k

46 g the development of a uniform definition of pancreas graft failure and propose a potential solution

47 There was no association between pancreas graft failure and recipient or donor characteri

48 e was associated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1

49 were associated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months.

50 Early pancreas graft failure in SPK transplant recipients is a

51 ion of therapeutic interventions after early pancreas graft failure is needed.

52 Pancreas graft failure occurred in 14 PAK and two PRT pa

53 We studied the impact of early pancreas graft failure on long-term kidney and patient s

54 It has been suggested that the definition of pancreas graft failure should differ depending on the ty

55 Early pancreas graft failure was associated with lower subsequ

56 The variables significantly associated with pancreas graft failure were transplant type (PTA vs. SPK

57 These findings were correlated with pancreas graft failure within 1-year after surgery by us

58 nfection, rejection, readmission, kidney and pancreas graft failure, and death) was examined with a C

59 absence of a clear and precise definition of pancreas graft failure, particularly one that lacks a me

60 D is not associated with increased long-term pancreas graft failure.

61 (HR, 1.04; P = 0.024) were risk factors for pancreas graft failure.

62 85; P<0.001) among SPK recipients with early pancreas graft failure.

63 Ts >=25 V were independently associated with pancreas graft failure/dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 2

64 critical need to optimally use all available pancreas grafts for transplantation.

65 The former received pancreas grafts from 1- to 2-day-old BALB/c donors which

66 There were 22 pancreas grafts from donors over 45 years of age, 13 of

67 This study demonstrates that utilization of pancreas grafts from selected, less-than-ideal donors re

68 e DN study was independently associated with pancreas graft function and CVD posttransplantation.

69 The incidence of delayed endocrine pancreas graft function and its impact on long-term outc

70 decrease the incidence of delayed endocrine pancreas graft function and its negative impact on long-

71 Long-term pancreas graft function is attainable and beta cell "exh

72 The incidence of delayed endocrine pancreas graft function was 69%.

73 Delayed endocrine pancreas graft function was defined as total, cumulative

74 in features evaluated were patient survival, pancreas graft function, C-peptide levels, glycemic para

75 In the 51 patients with sustained pancreas graft function, kidney function (serum creatini

76 iver graft is minimized without compromising pancreas graft function.

77 ecipients without and with delayed endocrine pancreas graft function.

78 onor Cav1 genotype correlates with long-term pancreas graft function.

79 Patient and primary cadaver pancreas graft functional (insulin-independence) surviva

80 A functioning pancreas graft further reduces CVE risk, independently o

81 t follow up, all 39 patients with functional pancreas graft had at least one comorbidity, such as hyp

82 tention to complications, some recipients of pancreas grafts have outstanding outcomes.

83 Pancreas grafts have vascular and enteric connections th

84 80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.03), pancreas graft (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.00), or patient s

85 iopsy-proven acute rejection (P-BPAR) of the pancreas graft in a cohort of 36 SPKTx recipients with b

86 m patients with and without rejection of the pancreas graft is lacking.

87 ear patient survival after loss of the first pancreas graft is significantly better in patients who u

88 Histological evaluation of the pancreas graft is usually done on demand resulting in si

89 hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00-1.81), pancreas graft loss (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.17-1.69), and k

90 (p = 0.02), fewer rejection episodes, and no pancreas graft loss after 3 months in bone marrow recipi

91 tistically significant differences in 5-year pancreas graft loss between transplants from DCD (n = 34

92 Pancreas graft loss due to rejection decreased from 50%

93 Comparison of PPFCs with pancreas graft loss to the PPFCs with surviving grafts s

94 eatic fistula was greater in the former (90% pancreas graft loss vs. 42% pancreas graft survival, P<0

95 ill become increasingly common as a cause of pancreas graft loss.

96 oups and to identify factors associated with pancreas graft loss.

97 pancreatic fistula carry a greater risk for pancreas graft loss.

98 ents, TF represents the most common cause of pancreas graft loss.

99 es more than tripled the risk for kidney and pancreas graft loss; therefore, new strategies are neede

100 Of the five pancreas graft losses, two were due to infection, one im

101 suggest that DCD pancreas grafts may have a larger application potential

102 sibility of applying these techniques to DCD pancreas grafts not only for preservation but also for v

103 n had no significant impact on kidney graft, pancreas graft, or patient survival.

104 We compared early pancreas graft outcomes at four pancreas transplant prog

105 We examined what impact TTD had on pancreas graft outcomes following donors after circulato

106 easured, the impact of donor HbA1c levels on pancreas graft outcomes has not been reported.

107 Pancreas-graft outcomes in SPK and PAK were equivalent i

108 Seventy-four consecutive pancreas graft pancreatectomies were studied histologica

109 No pancreas grafts preserved by the two-layer method suffer

110 ence suggests that portal venous drainage of pancreas grafts prevents hyperinsulinemia and improves l

111 f donor-derived cell-free DNA for monitoring pancreas graft recipients are provided.

112 Laboratory parameters for detecting pancreas graft rejection are not consistently reliable a

113 ker with good sensitivity in detecting early pancreas graft rejection could improve SPKTx management.

114 idered to be the gold standard in diagnosing pancreas graft rejection, they are not performed routine

115 hnique of choice in recipients with presumed pancreas graft rejection.

116 preservation of the recipient's life once a pancreas graft-related complication requiring relap occu

117 Pancreas graft status in simultaneous pancreas-kidney tr

118 %, 88.9%, and 76.0%; P = .3), death-censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non

119 sociated with lower probability of prolonged pancreas graft survival (hazard ratio: 0.52; confidence

120 There were no differences in pancreas graft survival (P = .964) and overall patient s

121 for inconsistent definitions of both T2D and pancreas graft survival across studies.

122 We found no evidence that TTD impacts pancreas graft survival after DCD simultaneous pancreas-

123 jured pancreata during preservation, improve pancreas graft survival after transplantation, and impro

124 ication measures, are associated with 1-year pancreas graft survival and donor pancreas acceptance re

125 We found an inferior pancreas graft survival and longer total transplant hosp

126 l, death-censored and technically successful pancreas graft survival and rejection rates of each grou

127 Six-month patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival and rejection rates were 97, 96,

128 Pancreas graft survival at 1 and 3 years was 94% and 82%

129 Pancreas graft survival at 1 year did not differ signifi

130 Pancreas graft survival at 52 weeks, defined by insulin

131 ificant differences in 5-year death-censored pancreas graft survival between the two donor types (79.

132 Overall pancreas graft survival for our series was 83%, with a m

133 Actuarial pancreas graft survival for SPK recipients at 1 and 5 ye

134 According to a matched-pair analysis, pancreas graft survival for SPK recipients at 6 months w

135 SPK pancreas graft survival has historically exceeded that o

136 Pancreas graft survival improved significantly over time

137 Five-year pancreas graft survival improved to 80.3% (P = 0.026).

138 Pancreas graft survival in patients who simultaneously r

139 However, there was a trend toward improved pancreas graft survival in the group receiving 4-5 doses

140 One year pancreas graft survival in these patients was compared t

141 Long-term pancreas graft survival is independent of donor body mas

142 ere observed between both groups neither for pancreas graft survival nor for post-transplant surgical

143 The pancreas graft survival rate at 1 year increased signifi

144 The 1-year pancreas graft survival rate of 90.1% in technically suc

145 nical problems between 1979 and 1988 (5-year pancreas graft survival rate, 29.7%), pancreas transplan

146 during the second decade (1989-1996; 5-year pancreas graft survival rate, 42.2%).

147 were no differences in patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates among the three groups.

148 One-year actuarial patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates are 93, 93, and 90%, respe

149 Pancreas graft survival rates at 6 months were 90% for S

150 Three-year actuarial patient/pancreas graft survival rates for SPK, PAK, and PTA were

151 One-year pancreas graft survival rates in SPK and PAK recipients

152 For SPK recipients, 1-year pancreas graft survival rates were 86% with MMF versus 7

153 Actual patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates were 86%, 82%, and 82%, re

154 One- and 5-year pancreas graft survival rates were 95.4% and 92.3%; loss

155 inimum 1 year), overall patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates were 96%, 89%, and 90%, re

156 ombined for primary cadaver SPK transplants, pancreas graft survival rates were significantly higher

157 atively high acute rejection rates and lower pancreas graft survival rates when compared with the mor

158 Pancreas graft survival rates with primary cadaver trans

159 tempt to minimize asystolic time to optimize pancreas graft survival rather than focus on the duratio

160 death with functioning grafts were censored, pancreas graft survival remained significantly better in

161 rvival was similar between DCD and DBD, with pancreas graft survival significantly better in the DCD

162 Overall patient and pancreas graft survival was 100% and 93% at a mean follo

163 At 5 years, non-death-censored pancreas graft survival was 75% and 82% among M and NM p

164 The actuarial 1-year pancreas graft survival was 87% for the PAK group versus

165 Pancreas graft survival was 97%, and patient survival wa

166 Pancreas graft survival was influenced by left or right

167 ncreas-kidney transplants, the 1- and 3-year pancreas graft survival was lower when the donor was age

168 Pancreas graft survival was similar for PAK and PRT at 1

169 Pancreas graft survival was similar in both groups, yet

170 One-year patient and death censored pancreas graft survival were 93.8% and 94.8% for the ste

171 Covariates influencing pancreas graft survival were analyzed using both univari

172 val rates at 1 year exceed 90%, and rates of pancreas graft survival, 70%.

173 the former (90% pancreas graft loss vs. 42% pancreas graft survival, P<0.01).

174 After 6 months of pancreas graft survival, salvage and non-leak groups had

175 between donor HbA1c levels and postoperative pancreas graft survival.

176 ter >22 y were included if they had >2 wk of pancreas graft survival.

177 related with higher mortality despite better pancreas graft survival.

178 P-PASS was not associated with pancreas graft survival.

179 and recipient related risk factors influence pancreas graft survival.

180 We compared patient, kidney graft, and pancreas graft survival.

181 y has shown excellent results in patient and pancreas graft survivals after 30 years of pancreas tran

182 p of 13.6+/-4.7 months, patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survivals are 100%, 100%, and 94%, respec

183 Three-year kidney and pancreas graft survivals were 97% and 90%, respectively.

184 One-year patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survivals were 97%, 94%, and 92%, respect

185 idney acute rejection (17.0% vs. 12.1%), and pancreas graft thrombosis (2.6% vs. 1.3%).

186 inal infection and graft pancreatitis (38%), pancreas graft thrombosis (27%), and anastomotic leak (1

187 Pancreas graft thrombosis is the most common cause of te

188 within the first 90 days largely related to pancreas graft thrombosis.

189 ed a xenograft model of immature human fetal pancreas grafted under the kidney capsule of immune-inco

190 vival, making it a viable method to increase pancreas graft utilization across distant organ sharing

191 Mean warm ischemia time of the pancreas graft was 34 min.

192 The pancreas graft was lost after delivery (because of acute

193 The pancreas graft was lost in 80% of recipients with versus

194 xperienced > or =1 rejection episode; only 1 pancreas graft was lost to rejection.

195 A single pancreas graft was lost to thrombosis.

196 on, we tested whether rejection of Lewis rat pancreas grafts was T-cell dependent and could be preven

197 Twenty of 25 patients with a transplant pancreas graft were alive at 6-months posttransplant.

198 NOD/scid and NOD/CIIT pancreas grafts were acutely destroyed whereas four of s

199 All pancreas grafts were drained enterically.

200 In addition, second Lewis rat pancreas grafts were hyperacutely rejected by presensiti

201 tional graft at last follow up and 9 (18.8%) pancreas grafts were lost due to patient death or graft

202 ng transient treatment success, a total of 3 pancreas grafts were lost for immunological reason.

203 Five kidney and five pancreas grafts were lost, including five deaths with fu

204 Sixty-three CT-guided core biopsies of 42 pancreas grafts were performed with 18-gauge needles ove

205 ely destroyed whereas four of six NOD/beta2m pancreas grafts were permanently accepted in autoimmune

206 Lewis rat pancreas grafts were rejected within 10 to 13 days, with

207 ed by a T-cell dependent response, Lewis rat pancreas grafts were transplanted into streptozotocin (S

208 Moreover, patients receiving only pancreas grafts will not have a concomitantly grafted ki

209 Of those, 470 had lost pancreas graft within the first 90 days largely related