ライフサイエンスコーパス: warm ischemia time

1 also enriched in DCD donors after the first warm ischemia time.

2 quality of life, shorter operating time, and warm ischemia time.

3 (LPN), particularly in regards to decreased warm ischemia time.

4 system closure and hemostasis with a limited warm ischemia time.

5 transaminase, UNOS status, donor gender, and warm ischemia time.

6 h has a lengthier overall operative time and warm ischemia time.

7 discarded because of older donor age or long warm ischemia times.

8 kidneys, which is susceptible to changes in warm ischemia times.

9 ime, and significantly decreased with longer warm ischemia times.

10 he open group but nonsignificantly different warm ischemia times.

11 COR-NMP than after SCS, despite longer donor warm ischemia times.

12 ), durations of perfusion (1 and 24 hr), and warm ischemia times (15 and 45 min).

13 Median operative time was 159 (54) minutes, warm ischemia time 180 (90) seconds, estimated blood los

14 me (mean, 159 vs. 188 min; P<0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (2 vs. 5 min; P<0.001) and a lower in

15 n after circulatory death (DCD, n = 36, mean warm ischemia time = 2 min) and donation after brain dea

16 sults are as follows: operative time 4.5 hr, warm ischemia time 25 min, and blood transfused (packed

17 es, estimated blood loss 344.2 +/- 690.3 mL, warm ischemia time 4.9 +/- 3.4 minutes, and donor length

18 After remaining in situ for 120 min (30-min warm ischemia time, 90-min cold ischemia time), the seco

19 The donor organ was subjected to 1 hour of warm ischemia time after circulatory cessation, then flu

20 Warm ischemia time and cold ischemia times were 38 and 4

21 optimal outcomes in both DCD with prolonged warm ischemia time and ECD-DBD LT.

22 analyzed following challenge with 45 min of warm ischemia time and either 4 h of reperfusion or 24 h

23 s well as clinical factors, such as cold and warm ischemia time and HLA mismatch.

24 ed temperature profiles crucial for managing warm ischemia time and optimizing cooling rates.

25 cases showed no significant differences for warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed gra

26 rgical demographics included operative time, warm ischemia time, and estimated blood loss.

27 Graft survival is affected by donor gender, warm ischemia time, and pretransplant patient condition.

28 re procured from older donors and had longer warm ischemia times, and consequently achieved higher ut

29 any DCD grafts are discarded because of long warm ischemia times, and the absence of reliable measure

30 um level, donor length of hospital stay, and warm ischemia time approached significance.

31 d hypothermia should be considered if longer warm ischemia times are anticipated (i.e. >25 min).

32 usal mediation analysis was used to evaluate warm ischemia time as a potential mediator of this assoc

33 perform this type of anastomosis may reduce warm ischemia time as well.

34 Outcomes evaluated were operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, donor complications, le

35 ve complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay

36 nephrectomy group had shorter operative and warm ischemia times by 52 minutes (P < 0.001) and 102 se

37 ewithdrawal preparation, definition of donor warm ischemia time, DCD surgical technique, combined tho

38 by lung recovery, poor HLA DR matching, and warm ischemia times differing with donor age.

39 ighted include the vital importance of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) on outcome for both recipients

40 status at transplantation, donor age, donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), and cold ischemia time (CIT).

41 e additional ischemic event during the donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), DCD grafts carry an increased

42 s regarding the injury incurred during donor warm ischemia time (DWIT).

43 In patients with embolization, the warm ischemia time (from embolization to removal of the

44 atients, retransplant recipients, donor age, warm ischemia time greater than 30 minutes and cold isch

45 Donor age >50 years, BMI >30, warm ischemia time >25 minutes, ITU stay >7 days and ALT

46 Risk factors for DGF included functional warm ischemia time >40 min, dialysis >2 y, recipient bod

47 cCrCl <60 mL/min/1.73m, PELD >25 points, and warm ischemia time >60 minutes.

48 5 days), cold ischemia time (>10 hours), and warm ischemia time (>40 minutes).

49 , 1.23-2.83; P = 0.003); however, functional warm ischemia time had no impact (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95

50 Median functional warm ischemia time in DCD donors was 44 (39-48) min.

51 last 5 years with a nearly 50% reduction of warm ischemia time in experienced hands.

52 clinical phase, the length of the functional warm ischemia time in the donation process was inversely

53 etwork for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status, cold/warm ischemia time, intraoperative blood loss, and occur

54 cluded operative time, islet isolation time, warm ischemia time, islet equivalent (IE) counts, estima

55 Despite prolonged warm ischemia time, Italian centers reported good outcom

56 onor-specific antibody, negative crossmatch, warm ischemia time less than 60 min, absence of recipien

57 While donor warm ischemia time may be shorter compared with controll

58 and donation after brain death (DBD, n = 76, warm ischemia time = none) were collected.

59 ntified recipient BMI (P = 0.046), recipient warm ischemia time (odds ratio, OR, 1.032; 95% CI, 1.008

60 a mean estimated blood loss of 85.7 mL and a warm ischemia time of 116.0 seconds.

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

62 Duration of surgery, warm ischemia time, operative blood loss, conversion, an

63 greater than 30% on liver biopsy, and donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05).

64 in cold ischemia time and organs with donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05).

65 may be associated with shorter operative and warm ischemia times, patients undergoing laparoscopic ne

66 ent age (r = -0.27662, p = 0.0016), cold and warm ischemia time (r = -0.25204, p = 0.0082; r = -0.197

67 Longer cold/warm ischemia time, recipient/donor hypertension, and ha

68 Cold as well as warm ischemia time resulted in a significant decrease in

69 sis, panel-reactive antibodies, and cold and warm ischemia time, the odds of oliguria were 1.60 (1.14

70 no-flow time to <30 minutes, and functional warm ischemia time to <150 minutes.

71 prove perioperative characteristics, such as warm ischemia time, to levels comparable to open surgery

72 rculatory death report good outcomes despite warm ischemia times up to 57 minutes.

73 n to asystole was 15.9+/-1.9 min and overall warm ischemia time was 12.5+/-1.0 min.

74 n, mean hospital stay was 3.2 days, and mean warm ischemia time was 123.3 seconds.

75 Mean functional warm ischemia time was 135 minutes.

76 Mean warm ischemia time was 14.7 minutes (range, 7-40 minutes

77 The warm ischemia time was 21 minutes, and the cold ischemia

78 Mean warm ischemia time was 3 minutes after laparoscopic harv

79 let isolation time was 185 (37) minutes, and warm ischemia time was 51 (62) minutes.

80 The median primary warm ischemia time was 6 min (interquartile range [IQR]:

81 Average warm ischemia time was 76 minutes.

82 Warm ischemia time was 77 minutes.

83 Warm ischemia time was longer in ROB (P 0.001) with resp

84 /-0.7 vs. 3.0+/-0.7 hours, P <0.04), whereas warm ischemia time was shorter (3:55+/-1:47 vs. 4:55+/-0

85 Warm ischemia time was shorter in the piggyback group an

86 Donor warm ischemia time was significantly shorter in the SCS

87 Per minute increase in warm ischemia time was the only significant risk factor

88 aining treatment to asystole, and functional warm ischemia time was the time from donor systolic bloo

89 hospitalization at time of OLT, and cold and warm ischemia time were independent predictors of surviv

90 Mean cold and warm ischemia times were 9:08 +/- 2:57 hr and 51 +/- 9 m

91 s, improving renal cooling or shortening the warm ischemia time will expand its indications further.

92 Warm ischemia time (WIT) and ischemia-reperfusion injury

93 the impact of MPH use in DCD procurements on warm ischemia time (WIT) and organ yield.

94 " such as cold ischemia time (CIT) recipient warm ischemia time (WIT) and the use of thrombolytic flu

95 ischemia time (CIT) at 2-hour intervals and warm ischemia time (WIT) at 10-minute intervals showed t

96 imated blood loss (EBL) greater than 500 mL, warm ischemia time (WIT) greater than 30 minutes, positi

97 In the HCV+ cohort, recipient race, warm ischemia time (WIT), and diabetes also independentl

98 ive time (210 versus 195 min; P = 0.011) and warm ischemia time (WIT; 230 versus 180 s; P < 0.001) we

99 operative times (TOT) (324 vs. 344 min) and warm ischemia times (WIT) (28 vs. 31 min) in the 45-90 g

100 creatinine excretion, TIMP-2/mOsm, and total warm ischemia time with an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence i