Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 11.
Published in final edited form as: Cornea. 2012 Oct;31(10):1141–1147. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f77f5

Table 2.

Multivariate Analysis of Baseline Factors Predictive of a Rejection Event*

Baseline Factors N Cumulative
Incidence
± 95% CI		 Multivariate Proportional Hazard
Model1
HR 95% CI P-value
Overall 1,090 26% ± 3%
Baseline diagnosis & Pre/Post-operative lens status <0.001
   Fuchs’: pre/post phakic 153 29% ± 7% 1.00
   Fuchs’: pre phakic/post pseudophakic/aphakic2 307 19% ± 5% 0.54 0.36 – 0.82
   Fuchs’: pre/post pseudophakic/aphakic3 216 23% ± 7% 0.70 0.45 – 1.07
   PACE: post pseudophakic/aphakic4 369 34% ± 6% 1.12 0.78 – 1.61
   Other diagnoses5 45 35% ± 19% 1.02 0.52 – 1.98
Recipient Gender 0.01
   Male 393 21% ± 4% 1.00
   Female 697 29% ± 4% 1.42 1.08 – 1.87
*

Includes both probable and/or definite rejection events.

PACE = Pseudophakic/Aphakic Corneal Edema

1

Multivariate proportional hazards model obtained through forward selection of variables, if p<0.05

2

Postoperatively, 299 subjects were pseudopahkic and 8 subjects were aphakic

3

Preoperatively 179 subjects were pseudophakic and 37 subjects were aphakic; postoperatively, 202 subjects were pseudopahkic and 14 subjects were aphakic

4

Preoperatively 345 subjects were pseudophakic and 24 subjects were aphakic; postoperatively, 361 subjects were pseudopahkic and 8 subjects were aphakic

5

Includes 45 subjects with variety of diagnoses: 12 with interstitial keratitis, 7 with posterior polymorphous dystrophy, 6 with perforating corneal injury and 20 with other causes of endothelial failure