ライフサイエンスコーパス: post-transplant

1 seline to 60 at 6 months and 59 at 24 months post-transplant).

2 oints (0.93 per 100 patient-years >=10 years post-transplant).

3 pients (90%), a median of 7 (1 to 65) months post transplant.

4 EF] score) and urine flow rates at 24 months post transplant.

5 compromise or graft dysfunction at 18 months post transplant.

6 s noninferior to EMB between 6 and 60 months post transplant.

7 onverted to belatacept within the first year post transplant.

8 er group was lost from recurrence 141 months post transplant.

9 ent antibiotic use was examined for 100 days post-transplant.

10 on (eGFR) and overall survival for two years post-transplant.

11 onstrated significant recovery up to 3 hours post-transplant.

12 ipants between the time of KTx and 12 months post-transplant.

13 (99%) of 79 patients had survived at 30 days post-transplant.

14 ion levels of the transgene in the recipient post-transplant.

15 1.95; 95% CI 0.93-4.07; P = .08) at day 180 post-transplant.

16 0 mg intravenous or placebo on days 0 and 12 post-transplant.

17 s disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and QOL 6 months post-transplant.

18 ervention on depression and PTSD at 6 months post-transplant.

19 ccurring after one month and before one year post-transplant.

20 e of the traditional model at transplant and post-transplant.

21 in depression and PTSD symptoms at 6 months post-transplant.

22 antibodies (DSA) detected in the first year post-transplant.

23 Early AR occurred within six months post-transplant.

24 d) and estimated quality-adjusted life-years post-transplant.

25 HV-6 viremia with outcomes through 12 months post-transplant.

26 essed patients with ABMR in the first 1 year post-transplant.

27 eclined over successive eras, at all periods post-transplant.

28 creased (P=0.001) and MD decreased (P<0.001) post-transplant.

29 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support post-transplant.

30 -proven rejection within 12 months (p=0.045) post-transplant.

31 experience short-term cognitive improvement post-transplant.

32 we measured cognitive function up to 4 years post-transplant.

33 cellular rejection (ACR) at 3 months (ACR-3) post-transplant.

34 ssociated with medium-term cognitive decline post-transplant.

35 be re-evaluated at one, three and six months post- transplant.

36 n cause of death, particularly in months 0-3 post-transplant (1.18 per 100 patient-years).

37 At 1-year post-transplant, 10.5% of patients demonstrated ASP prog

38 3 patients developed HS a median of 7 days post-transplant; 2 died of HS.

39 novo DM; this was observed starting 6 months post-transplant: 22.9% vs. 16.7% (relative risk 1.38).

40 Post-transplant 30-day mortality was lower at the highes

41 By 5 years post-transplant, 39.8% NASH vs. 27.0% controls developed

42 MR had the poorest graft survival at 8 years post-transplant (56%) compared with subclinical TCMR (88

43 (Expanded Disability Status Scale score < 7) post-transplant (78% versus 0%; P = 0.021).

44 ntation and continuing weekly until 100 days post-transplant, a total of 694 observations in HCT reci

45 t admission strongly predicted more frequent post-transplant admission.

46 Among the 8207 post-transplant allograft biopsies performed during the

47 By day 60 post-transplant, allografts with a 6 hour cold-ischemia

48 nderwent ERCP and Kaffes stent insertion for post-transplant anastomotic strictures following confirm

49 one-third of patients develop CAV by 5 years post-transplant and 1 in 8 deaths beyond a year are due

50 included readmissions within the first-year post-transplant and 3-year graft and patient survival.

51 as a composite of patient survival at day 30 post-transplant and absence of The International Society

52 common in biopsy specimens obtained >1 year post-transplant and continued to appear in all subsequen

53 idney transplant recipients recruited 1 year post-transplant and followed for a median of 8.3 years.

54 The associations between AR within 6 months post-transplant and subsequent cause-specific graft loss

55 LC less than 0.75 x10 3cells/uL at one month post-transplant and the primary endpoint was a composite

56 function (defined as dialysis in first week post-transplant), and recipient 6-month eGFR.

57 creened for DSA at transplant, 1 and 2 years post-transplant, and the time of post-transplant clinica

58 tained, miR-21 was measured daily for 5 days post-transplant, and was consistently elevated in those

59 tudies of HCT patients, absent or <1 year of post-transplant antiviral prophylaxis were associated wi

60 cause-specific mortality at all time points post-transplant are also apparent.

61 meters and predicted cardiovascular function post-transplant are used to evaluate the cardiovascular

62 al model studies will be required to control post-transplant arrhythmia.

63 f circulating TEMRA CD8(+) T cells at 1 year post-transplant associated with increased risk of graft

64 based prophylaxis with eculizumab to prevent post-transplant atypical HUS recurrence throughout the c

65 020 (94%) patients during the first 100 days post-transplant; average antibiotic exposure was 41% of

66 FVC decline from its post-transplant baseline provides valuable prognostic in

67 Decline in FEV1 or FVC from their respective post-transplant baselines occurred in 85 patients (41%).

68 d was measured at 28,000 copies/mL on day 13 post-transplant before rapid decay to <50 copies/mL in 2

69 Matched pre- and post-transplant biopsies from donation after circulatory

70 In 2008, we initiated routine post-transplant BK viremia and DSA screening at our cent

71 Unlike previous studies, DXA showed no post-transplant bone loss in either group; we instead ob

72 Cancer deaths were rare early post-transplant, but frequent at later time points (0.93

73 the same donor were still functioning 1-year post-transplant, but potential beneficial effects of HMP

74 nged QTc interval and Q wave were related to post-transplant cardiac events (p < 0.05 for all).

75 Post-transplant cardiac events are more common than in t

76 these patients and data on the occurrence of post-transplant cardiac events in comparison with the ge

77 atient from the group of five that exhibited post-transplant cardiovascular complications.

78 splantation, enabling immunosuppression-free post-transplant care, and early transfer of adenovirus-s

79 nt in immunosuppression and other aspects of post-transplant care.

80 CI, 0.49 to 1.36; P<0.001, respectively) and post-transplant (category-free net reclassification inde

81 unosuppressive regimens do not contribute to post-transplant central skeleton trabecular bone loss, a

82 the length of surveillance intervals in the post-transplant CF population (a population at 20-30 tim

83 Secondary hyperparathyroidism contributes to post-transplant CKD mineral and bone disorder.

84 and 2 years post-transplant, and the time of post-transplant clinical events.

85 identifying and managing important pre- and post-transplant clinical outcomes.

86 ement, and potential strategies for averting post-transplant CMV morbidities.

87 tibility to surgical stressors, achieve such post-transplant cognitive improvements or whether they e

88 me) and intercept (person), we characterized post-transplant cognitive trajectories by pretransplant

89 short- and medium-term effects of frailty on post-transplant cognitive trajectories, we measured cogn

90 By 3 months post-transplant, cognitive performance improved for both

91 At 4 years post-transplant, cognitive scores were 5.8 points lower

92 S recipients converted within the first year post transplant compared to non-HS recipients (log-rank

93 e in patients with ASP progression at 1-year post-transplant compared with those without.

94 ups (nondialysis stages 3-5, on dialysis, or post-transplant) completed the kidney-specific CKD-QOL a

95 majority of 30-day readmissions were due to post transplant complications, with packed red blood cel

96 after circulatory death is safe and reduces post-transplant complications (grade IIIb or more).

97 ht heart catheterizations (RHCs) to identify post-transplant complications and guide treatment.

98 ndary study endpoints were the occurrence of post-transplant complications, the necessity of operativ

99 ces in surgical techniques and management of post-transplant complications.

100 ameters, time on transplant waiting list and post-transplant complications.

101 eceive four pre-transplant induction and two post-transplant consolidation cycles of VTd alone (VTd g

102 However, the post-transplant course has some distinct features when c

103 plantation can vary significantly during the post-transplant course.

104 G associated with both immune activation and post-transplant CVEs in this cohort.

105 s and adding subcutaneous enfuvirtide during post-transplant cyclophosphamide and during oral medicat

106 for haploidentical transplantation with the post-transplant cyclophosphamide approach but with diffe

107 We used post-transplant cyclophosphamide as graft-versus-host di

108 By using post-transplant cyclophosphamide as GVHD prophylaxis, we

109 al donor hematopoietic transplantation using post-transplant cyclophosphamide was originally describe

110 Anti-GvHD prophylaxis of tacrolimus, post-transplant cyclophosphamide, and CD28 blockade indu

111 ted, and 326 provided both pretransplant and post-transplant data.

112 ative heart, allograft, liver etc.) obtained post-transplant day five revealed wide-spread and robust

113 On post-transplant days 3-5, the treatment group had lower

114 pout (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65-1.39, p=0.79) or post-transplant death (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 0.72-4.9, p=0.20

115 preadmission was the strongest predictor of post-transplant death, and had a dose-dependent effect o

116 Post-transplant, development of de novo donor-specific H

117 lid organ transplantation, susceptibility to post-transplant diabetes and cardiovascular disease has

118 t which is most important and to what extent post-transplant diabetes is a distinct entity or simply

119 n = 298) had Pre-DM, 16% (n = 362) developed post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), 5% (n = 118) d

120 od and timing for detection and diagnosis of post-transplant diabetes remains an area of uncertainty.

121 ntribute to development and manifestation of post-transplant diabetes, but controversy continues abou

122 y reduce incidence and improve management of post-transplant diabetes.

123 ic therapies in prevention and management of post-transplant diabetes.

124 idence and clinical outcomes associated with post-transplant diabetes; establish the role of glycaemi

125 ary graft failure up to 30 days of follow-up post transplant did not differ between the 3 donor tropo

126 sociated with immune-mediated complications, post-transplant disease or alterations in drug-metaboliz

127 ents with NASH have a higher risk of de novo post-transplant DM.

128 ently associated with development of de novo post-transplant DM: adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) = 1.2

129 e compared with those of healthy controls or post-transplant DOCK8-deficient patients (n = 12) by flo

130 Analysis of circulating post-transplant donor T cells suggests that they undergo

131 ansplant sera, and they were associated with post-transplant donor-specific HLA antibodies, antibody-

132 Thus, pre- and post-transplant DSA monitoring and characterization may

133 Post-transplant DSA monitoring improved the prediction o

134 c from 2003 to 2013 and who had baseline and post-transplant echocardiograms; patients with simultane

135 on practice had a positive effect on average post-transplant eGFR and balanced out the negative effec

136 iod and the 2011-2013 period, average 1-year post-transplant eGFR remained essentially unchanged, wit

137 In conclusion, average 1-year post-transplant eGFR remained stable, despite increasing

138 effects of practice changes on the national post-transplant eGFR trend.

139 nued organ shortage, preservation of average post-transplant eGFR will require sustained improvement

140 ds unmasked a larger temporal improvement in post-transplant eGFR.

141 ies of three heart transplants at a five-day post-transplant endpoint.

142 examined the association between the AMS and post-transplant estimated glomerular filtration rate (eG

143 The reason is that extensive post-transplant expansion is needed to establish and sus

144 jection status for macrophages and with time post-transplant for lymphocytes.

145 unselected biopsies taken 3 days to 35 years post-transplant from North American and European centers

146 By contrast, post-transplant gain of private insurance among patients

147 lity (or becoming too sick to transplant) or post-transplant graft loss (death/re-HT).

148 tio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.9) or post-transplant graft loss (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confid

149 and showed a trend toward increased risk of post-transplant graft loss (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% confid

150 rsus 69.2%) and 10-year (54.4% versus 49.8%) post-transplant graft survival (GS) (hazard ratio [HR],

151 d association of picobirnaviruses with early post-transplant GVHD.

152 rin before liver transplantation can prevent post-transplant HCV recurrence.

153 r kidney transplant has an unknown effect on post-transplant health care utilization.

154 arkov models to the distribution of discrete post-transplant health states (HRQL better than pretrans

155 s there was only one confirmed case of CS on post-transplant histological assessment.

156 physiology, and management considerations of post-transplant hypertension.

157 each explain some of the pathophysiology of post-transplant hypertension.

158 Several studies suggest a link between post-transplant hypomagnesemia and new-onset diabetes af

159 l applications in the tailored management of post-transplant immunosuppression and, more broadly, as

160 tch load could be used to guide personalized post-transplant immunosuppression.

161 However, bone biopsies showed post-transplant impairment of trabecular connectivity (a

162 In contrast, TCMR disappears by 10 years post-transplant, implying that a state of partial adapti

163 Between 1 and 4 years post-transplant, improvements plateaued among nonfrail r

164 Post-transplant inflammation augments generation of dono

165 d organ is a powerful approach to monitoring post-transplant injury.

166 At 6 months post-transplant, intervention participants reported lowe

167 lant recipients, serial (baseline and 1-year post-transplant) intravascular ultrasound was performed

168 ow cytometry was performed for evaluation of post-transplant IR in both MS and lymphoma patients rece

169 ause-specific mortality at different periods post-transplant is required to better inform patients, c

170 l likely increase and with that the risk for post-transplant KS.

171 Post-transplant length of stay was also similar between

172 signals in EBV-transformed human B cells and post-transplant lymphoma, and thus qualifies as a target

173 essed in newly infected B lymphocytes and in post-transplant lymphomas.

174 HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.03-3.10; P = 0.038) and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (adjusted HR

175 encouraging response rates in patients with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease as well as E

176 ients with highly immunogenic tumors such as post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, although re

177 (P = 0.08) survival with lower incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (P = 0.09)

178 motherapy as a standard in the management of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) and

179 Higher incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is r

180 o (p = 0.47); there were no retransplants or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

181 ESKD and 19 controls; 22 patients completed post-transplant magnetic resonance imaging.

182 PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with new

183 l and clinical factors are needed to address post-transplant microbiome health.

184 synthesize and update the pathophysiology of post-transplant MN, as well as to address unsolved issue

185 nt therapeutic strategies so far deployed in post-transplant MN.

186 nt, including pre-transplant considerations, post-transplant monitoring and the clinical approach aft

187 SMI was associated with post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96 per

188 or nondonors; P<0.001) and experienced lower post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confi

189 SMI was not associated with post-transplant mortality (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.09).

190 sis, sarcopenia was strongly associated with post-transplant mortality (HR = 4.39, 95% CI 1.49-12.97)

191 time from referral to evaluation on pre and post-transplant mortality and transplant list drop out a

192 ransplantation (HT) may be at higher risk of post-transplant mortality compared with children who are

193 tify variables associated with wait-list and post-transplant mortality for CF lung transplant candida

194 centers, ECMO was associated with increased post-transplant mortality hazard (hazard ratio, 1.968; 9

195 mined the association between sarcopenia and post-transplant mortality in acutely ill inpatients with

196 to capture the impact of muscle depletion on post-transplant mortality in acutely ill men with cirrho

197 ed an SMI cutoff value of 48 cm/m to predict post-transplant mortality in men.

198 ECMO was a predictor of post-transplant mortality in the Cox analysis compared w

199 ion time 15-28 days (1.8; 1.1-2.9) increased post-transplant mortality risk.

200 Cox regression associated SMI with post-transplant mortality.

201 not confer additional risk for wait-list or post-transplant mortality.

202 used to estimate risk-adjusted predictors of post-transplant mortality.

203 =0.011) emerged as significant predictors of post-transplant mortality.

204 d not identify any SMI cutoff that predicted post-transplant mortality.

205 decline and control subjects matched by time post-transplant (n = 22).

206 ponential survival model, stratified by time post-transplant or time post-graft failure.

207 ationship between donor hepatectomy time and post-transplant outcome in 12,974 recipients of deceased

208 We describe post transplant outcomes and response to therapy in 20 r

209 In such selected patients, the post-transplant outcomes are good with survival rates th

210 e primary outcomes of waitlist mortality and post-transplant outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.

211 d understand a differential effect of SES on post-transplant outcomes that was not seen during LVAD s

212 ing oxygen during preservation might improve post-transplant outcomes, particularly for kidneys subje

213 cipients, assess the impact of opioid use on post-transplant outcomes, present evidence supporting no

214 onalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with good post-transplant outcomes.

215 vere obesity was not associated with adverse post-transplant outcomes.

216 graft prior to implantation that may improve post-transplant outcomes.

217 Reductions in death early and late post-transplant over the past 40 years represent a major

218 1 and P<0.001, respectively) also normalized post-transplant (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively).

219 compared with controls (P=0.003), decreased post-transplant (P<0.001) to values in controls.

220 pretransplant versus 11.4 muM [8.9-20.2 muM] post-transplant; P=0.03).

221 nal immune monitoring methods applied in the post-transplant period, the initiation of late graft los

222 progenitor classes during the early and late post-transplant phases, and hierarchical relationships a

223 ic clonal dynamics during the early and late post-transplant phases.

224 ively, to 57 at 6 months and 46 at 24 months post transplant; physical health scores improved from 37

225 Post-transplant positive outcomes are associated with a

226 ons of post-transplant survival and examined post-transplant private-to-public and public-to-private

227 -Brody Scale), nursing diagnoses (NANDA) and post-transplant quality indicators.

228 SION:: NRP and HOPE in cDCD achieved similar post-transplant recipient and graft survival rates excee

229 At day 14 post-transplant, recipients of allografts subjected to 6

230 ular state, and to use these models to track post-transplant recovery and outcome.

231 apshot of cardiovascular function at a given post-transplant recovery time point.

232 ith poor clinical prognosis and high risk of post-transplant recurrence.

233 teroid sensitivity as a surrogate marker for post-transplant recurrence.

234 Post-transplant reinnervation is a unique model to study

235 transplant, suggesting a predisposition for post-transplant rejection risk.

236 ation, patients with myocarditis had similar post-transplant rejection, retransplantation, and surviv

237 ommon pool of immunogenic antigens may drive post-transplant rejection.

238 idate a published pre-LT model predictive of post-transplant renal recovery (Renal Recovery Assessmen

239 Donor biomarkers that predict post-transplant renal recovery could improve organ selec

240 Pirfenidone treatment beginning one month post-transplant restored pulmonary function and reversed

241 identified for 10 patients from their first post-transplant RHC, and longitudinal analysis is carrie

242 t transplant, 110 (12.9%) patients had DSAs; post-transplant screening identified 186 (21.9%) DSA-pos

243 In this pilot study, GEP starting at 55 days post transplant seems comparable with EMB for rejection

244 systematic allograft biopsies at the time of post-transplant serum evaluation.

245 Our results suggest that lower post-transplant serum magnesium level is an independent

246 tions of HHV-8-mediated human disease in the post-transplant setting.

247 Post-transplant severe graft-versus-host disease could b

248 tion/withdrawal protocols and more intensive post-transplant surveillance.

249 Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score.

250 me centers, ECMO had no adverse influence on post-transplant survival (hazard ratio, 0.853; 95% confi

251 he association between preoperative 6MWD and post-transplant survival after adjusting for potential c

252 kidney allocation policy may improve overall post-transplant survival and access for highly sensitize

253 of 11 247 patients included all durations of post-transplant survival and examined post-transplant pr

254 6MWD is significantly associated with post-transplant survival and is best incorporated into t

255 Kaplan-Meier's 5-year post-transplant survival and recurrence-free probabiliti

256 ng-term outcomes, compounding disparities in post-transplant survival attributed to insurance status

257 d to assess the association between 6MWD and post-transplant survival by disease category.

258 waitlist mortality while exceeding national post-transplant survival metrics.

259 LAS wait-list and post-transplant survival models were recalculated using

260 Post-transplant survival was improved at the highest vol

261 Influences of ECMO on post-transplant survival were estimated among adults rec

262 Post-transplant survival with TCS-VAD is superior to ECM

263 ates in the top 20th percentile of estimated post-transplant survival, adding waiting time from dialy

264 h a low rate of HCC recurrence and excellent post-transplant survival, comparable to those meeting T2

265 pected, but with equivalent and satisfactory post-transplant survival.

266 lower KDPI scores are associated with better post-transplant survival.

267 urrence rates (4.5% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.138) and post-transplant survivals (78.7% vs. 74.6% at 4 years; P

268 108 biopsy specimens obtained 10.2-35 years post-transplant, TCMR defined by molecular and conventio

269 At 1 year post-transplant, the composition of memory CD8(+) T cell

270 nsformation of portal vein, and 3 (3.1%) had post-transplant thrombosis.

271 At the four-year post-transplant time point this patient exhibited bivent

272 y, renal transplantation was associated with post-transplant TMA.

273 riteria were randomized beginning at 55 days post transplant to either GEP or EMB arms.

274 ne repertoire sequencing to monitor atypical post-transplant trajectories, we analyzed two more patie

275 Post-transplant tuberculosis (PTTB) is a serious opportu

276 This may result in lower post-transplant (Tx) survival for high-risk candidates m

277 this study was to assess the risk of de novo post-transplant type 2 diabetes (DM) in liver transplant

278 Post-LAS recipients also had higher post-transplant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenati

279 ytes were found to innately induce transient post-transplant ventricular tachycardia in recent large

280 may thus explain the transient incidence of post-transplant ventricular tachycardia, although furthe

281 to viruses commonly detected during routine post-transplant virus monitoring, metagenomic sequencing

282 The median length of hospital stay post transplant was also similar across groups.

283 Median age was 58 (IQR 46-57), median time post-transplant was 5 years (IQR 2-10), 61% were male, a

284 Unadjusted survival at 1 and 5 years post-transplant was 90 +/- 0.4% and 77 +/- 0.7% for dura

285 f or use of antiviral prophylaxis at <1 year post-transplant was associated with a higher HZ incidenc

286 IIV in autoHCT patients in their first year post-transplant was conducted.

287 Graft loss at 6 months post-transplant was significantly higher in group 1 (10

288 At baseline and 6 months post-transplant, we assessed mood, PTSD symptoms, and QO

289 At short and long times post-transplant, we found host-derived synapses on GFP-i

290 most marked; however, recipients >=10 years post-transplant were 20% less likely to die in the curre

291 recipients with functional grafts at 90 days post-transplant were followed prospectively for a median

292 oniazid (300 mg q24h for 9 months) initiated post-transplant when liver function was stabilized.

293 trial of GEP versus EMB starting at 55 days post transplant (when GEP is valid).

294 At day 784 post-transplant, when HIV-1 was undetectable by multiple

295 ent prospective screening biopsies at 1 year post-transplant, with concurrent evaluations of graft co

296 modified porcine organs with CHC may benefit post-transplant xenograft function.

297 culopathy (P=0.19) or rejection in the first post-transplant year (P=0.76).

298 opsy-proven acute rejection during the first post-transplant year in a present-day, five-center lung

299 surements and Main Results: During the first post-transplant year, 53.3% of patients experienced at l

300 R frequency and/or severity during the first post-transplant year.Conclusions: We found a high incide