Literature DB >> 15100206

MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes.

James F Trotter1, Michael J Osgood.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score serves as the basis for the distribution of deceased-donor (DD) livers and was developed in response to "the final rule" mandate, whose stated principle is to allocate livers according to a patient's medical need, with less emphasis on keeping organs in the local procurement area. However, in selected areas of the United States, organs are kept in organ procurement organizations (OPOs) with small waiting lists and transplanted into less-sick patients instead of being allocated to sicker patients in nearby transplant centers in OPOs with large waiting lists.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a difference in MELD scores for liver transplant recipients receiving transplants in small vs large OPOs. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective review of the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between February 28, 2002, and March 31, 2003. Transplant recipients (N = 4798) had end-stage liver disease and received DD livers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MELD score distribution (range, 6-40), graft survival, and patient survival for liver transplant recipients in small (<100) and large (> or =100 on the waiting list) OPOs.
RESULTS: The distribution of MELD scores was the same in large and small OPOs; 92% had a MELD score of 18 or less, 7% had a MELD score between 19 and 24, and only 2% of listed patients had a MELD score higher than 24 (P =.85). The proportion of patients receiving transplants in small OPOs and with a MELD score higher than 24 was significantly lower than that in large OPOs (19% vs 49%; P<.001). Patient survival rates at 1 year after transplantation for small OPOs (86.4%) and large OPOs (86.6%) were not statistically different (P =.59), and neither were graft survival rates in small OPOs (80.1%) and large OPOs (81.3%) (P =.80).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant disparity in MELD scores in liver transplant recipients in small vs large OPOs; fewer transplant recipients in small OPOs have severe liver disease (MELD score >24). This disparity does not reflect the stated goals of the current allocation policy, which is to distribute livers according to a patient's medical need, with less emphasis on keeping organs in the local procurement area.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15100206     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.15.1871

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  21 in total

Review 1.  [Deceased donor liver transplantation].

Authors:  D Seehofer; W Schöning; P Neuhaus
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Predicting Outcomes on the Liver Transplant Waiting List in the United States: Accounting for Large Regional Variation in Organ Availability and Priority Allocation Points.

Authors:  Allyson Hart; David P Schladt; Jessica Zeglin; Joshua Pyke; W Ray Kim; John R Lake; John P Roberts; Ryutaro Hirose; David C Mulligan; Bertram L Kasiske; Jon J Snyder; Ajay K Israni
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.939

3.  Geographic inequity in access to livers for transplantation.

Authors:  Heidi Yeh; Elizabeth Smoot; David A Schoenfeld; James F Markmann
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 4.  Development of the allocation system for deceased donor liver transplantation.

Authors:  John M Coombes; James F Trotter
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2005-05

5.  Racial and ethnic disparities in access to liver transplantation.

Authors:  Amit K Mathur; Douglas E Schaubel; Qi Gong; Mary K Guidinger; Robert M Merion
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.799

6.  Patients With Persistently Low MELD-Na Scores Continue to Be at Risk of Liver-related Death.

Authors:  Nikhilesh R Mazumder; Kofi Atiemo; Amna Daud; Abel Kho; Michael Abecassis; Josh Levitsky; Daniela P Ladner
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  Presentation and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients at a western centre.

Authors:  Krit Kitisin; Vignesh Packiam; Jennifer Steel; Abhinav Humar; T Clark Gamblin; David A Geller; J Wallis Marsh; Allan Tsung
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Survival outcomes in liver transplant recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores of 40 or higher: a decade-long experience.

Authors:  Hina J Panchal; Joel B Durinka; Jeromy Patterson; Farah Karipineni; Sarah Ashburn; Eric Siskind; Jorge Ortiz
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.647

9.  Current Issues in Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  James F Trotter
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2016-04

10.  County socioeconomic characteristics and pediatric renal transplantation outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca Miller; Clifford Akateh; Noelle Thompson; Dmitry Tumin; Don Hayes; Sylvester M Black; Joseph D Tobias
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.