Literature DB >> 18508377

Comparison of four model for end-stage liver disease-based prognostic systems for cirrhosis.

Teh-Ia Huo1, Han-Chieh Lin, Samantha C Huo, Pui-Ching Lee, Jaw-Ching Wu, Fa-Yauh Lee, Ming-Chih Hou, Shou-Dong Lee.   

Abstract

Serum sodium (Na) has been suggested for incorporation into the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) to enhance its prognostic ability for patients with cirrhosis. Three Na-containing models--the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease with the incorporation of serum sodium (MELD-Na), the integrated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (iMELD), and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease to sodium (MESO) index--were independently proposed for this purpose. This study investigated the accuracy of these 4 MELD-based models for outcome prediction. The c-statistic equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), used to predict 3- and 6-month mortality, was calculated and compared in 825 patients with cirrhosis. The MELD score tended to be lower with increasing Na level. At 3 months of enrollment, the iMELD had the highest AUC (0.807) and was followed by the MELD-Na (0.801), MESO (0.784), and MELD (0.773); the difference between the MESO and MELD was statistically significant (P = 0.013). At 6 months, the iMELD still had the highest AUC (0.797) and was followed by the MELD-Na (0.778), MESO (0.747), and MELD (0.735); all comparisons showed significant differences between each other (all P < 0.01), with the exception of iMELD and MELD-Na (P = 0.18). With the most discriminative cutoffs, the specificity and negative predictive value were 70%-85% and 89%-97%, respectively, at 3 and 6 months for the 4 models. Patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) consistently had significantly higher MELD-derived scores in all 4 models compared to patients without SBP (all P < 0.01). Patients with hepatic encephalopathy also had higher scores in all 4 models, although the statistical significance was established only for the iMELD (41.0 +/- 11.5 versus 37.6 +/- 9.1, P = 0.037). In conclusion, the incorporation of Na into the MELD may enhance prognostic accuracy. Both the iMELD and MELD-Na are better prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with cirrhosis. Patients with SBP have a higher MELD-derived score. Future studies are warranted to define the optimal MELD-based prognostic model for cirrhosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18508377     DOI: 10.1002/lt.21439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  12 in total

Review 1.  Prioritization for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Evangelos Cholongitas; Giacomo Germani; Andrew K Burroughs
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 2.  Prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma biological behavior in patient selection for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Umberto Cillo; Tommaso Giuliani; Marina Polacco; Luz Maria Herrero Manley; Gino Crivellari; Alessandro Vitale
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Prognostic Models for Survival in Patients with Stable Cirrhosis: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Authors:  Maria Kalafateli; Konstantinos Zisimopoulos; Georgia Vourli; Cristina Rigamonti; John Goulis; Emanuel Manesis; Spilios Manolakopoulos; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Aikaterini Georgiou; Georgia Diamantopoulou; Konstantinos Thomopoulos; Charalambos Gogos; Giota Touloumi; Evangelos Akriviadis; Chryssoula Lambropoulou-Karatza; Christos Triantos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Assessment of frailty in cirrhosis using bedside measures and its correlation with Child-Turcotte-Pugh, MELD & MELD-Na Scores.

Authors:  Bader Faiyaz Zuberi; Tazeen Rasheed; Faiza Sadaqat Ali; Nimrah Bader; Rabia Sadaf
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.340

5.  Value of MELD and MELD-based indices in surgical risk evaluation of cirrhotic patients: retrospective analysis of 190 cases.

Authors:  Beatriz P Costa; F Castro Sousa; Marco Serôdio; César Carvalho
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 6.  Preoperative liver function assessments to estimate the prognosis and safety of liver resections.

Authors:  Toru Mizuguchi; Masaki Kawamoto; Makoto Meguro; Thomas T Hui; Koichi Hirata
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Comparison of four models for end-stage liver disease in evaluating the prognosis of cirrhosis.

Authors:  Ming Jiang; Fei Liu; Wu-Jun Xiong; Lan Zhong; Xi-Mei Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Comparison of five models for end-stage liver disease in predicting the survival rate of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Ying-Fen Hong; Zhan-Hong Chen; Xiao-Kun Ma; Xing Li; Dong-Hao Wu; Jie Chen; Min Dong; Li Wei; Tian-Tian Wang; Dan-Yun Ruan; Ze-Xiao Lin; Jing-Yun Wen; Qu Lin; Chang-Chang Jia; Xiang-Yuan Wu
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-11-11

9.  The diminished expression of proangiogenic growth factors and their receptors in gastric ulcers of cirrhotic patients.

Authors:  Jiing-Chyuan Luo; Yen-Ling Peng; Ming-Chih Hou; Kuang-Wei Huang; Hui-Chun Huang; Ying-Wen Wang; Han-Chieh Lin; Fa-Yauh Lee; Ching-Liang Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  The evolution in the prioritization for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Evangelos Cholongitas; Andrew K Burroughs
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.