Literature DB >> 14611977

MELD/PELD: one year later.

R B Freeman1.   

Abstract

The liver allocation policy in the United States was changed on February 27, 2002, to a continuous scale with almost no weight given to time waiting on the list. This was based on the dissatisfaction with the old categorical system and an understanding that waiting time as not a good discriminator of medical urgency. To assess the effects of this change, liver allocation results for the first 6 months of this new system (February 27, 2002, to August 30, 2002, era 2) with the corresponding 6 month period 1 year earlier (February 27, 2001, to August 30, 2001, era 1) were compared. Fewer registrations on the waiting list, fewer removals from the waiting list because of death or "too sick," and an increase in the number of cadaveric transplants under the new system were observed. Patients with hepatocellular cancer received additional priority with the new policy and there was a significant increase in the number of candidates transplanted with this diagnosis in era 2. Early posttransplant patient survival has not changed under the new system. Although there are many areas for improvement, which will be addressed in future refinements, the new US liver allocation plan has provided a more objective, patient-specific system to better rank waiting liver transplant candidates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14611977     DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2003.08.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplant Proc        ISSN: 0041-1345            Impact factor:   1.066


  5 in total

1.  Time to transplantation as a predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Mariya L Samoylova; Jennifer L Dodge; Francis Y Yao; John Paul Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 2.  Kidney, pancreas and liver allocation and distribution in the United States.

Authors:  J M Smith; S W Biggins; D G Haselby; W R Kim; J Wedd; K Lamb; B Thompson; D L Segev; S Gustafson; R Kandaswamy; P G Stock; A J Matas; C J Samana; E F Sleeman; D Stewart; A Harper; E Edwards; J J Snyder; B L Kasiske; A K Israni
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Survival and variceal rehemorrhage after shunting support small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt.

Authors:  Alexander Rosemurgy; Donald Thometz; Whalen Clark; Desiree Villadolid; Elizabeth Carey; Daphne Pinkas; Steven Rakita; Emmanuel Zervos
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhotic patients: the value of MELD score and Child-Pugh classification in predicting outcome.

Authors:  Spiros Delis; Andreas Bakoyiannis; Juan Madariaga; John Bramis; Nikos Tassopoulos; Christos Dervenis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Validation of the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease for Liver Transplant Allocation in Alberta: Implications for Future Directions in Canada.

Authors:  Kelly W Burak; Glenda A Meeberg; Robert P Myers; Gordon H Fick; Mark G Swain; Vincent G Bain; Norman M Kneteman; Robert J Hilsden
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.