Literature DB >> 21334338

A revised model for end-stage liver disease optimizes prediction of mortality among patients awaiting liver transplantation.

Michael D Leise1, W Ray Kim, Walter K Kremers, Joseph J Larson, Joanne T Benson, Terry M Therneau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was originally developed based on data from patients who underwent the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure. An updated MELD based on data from patients awaiting liver transplantation should improve mortality prediction and allocation efficiency.
METHODS: Wait-list data from adult primary liver transplantation candidates from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network were divided into a model derivation set (2005-2006; n=14,214) and validation set (2007-2008; n=13,945). Cox regression analysis was used to derive and validate an optimized model that updated coefficients and upper and lower bounds for MELD components and included serum levels of sodium. Main outcomes measure was ability to predict 90-day mortality of patients on the liver transplantation wait list.
RESULTS: Optimized MELD score updated coefficients and implemented new upper and lower bounds for creatinine (0.8 and 3.0 mg/dL, respectively) and international normalized ratio (1 and 3, respectively). Serum sodium concentrations significantly predicted mortality, even after adjusting for the updated MELD model. The final model, based on updated fit of the 4 variables (ie, bilirubin, creatinine, international normalized ratio, and sodium) had a modest yet statistically significant gain in discrimination (concordance: 0.878 vs 0.865; P<.01) in the validation dataset. Utilization of the new score could affect up to 12% of patients (based on changed score for 459 of 3981 transplants in the validation set).
CONCLUSIONS: Modification of MELD score to update coefficients, change upper and lower bounds, and incorporate serum sodium levels improved wait-list mortality prediction and should increase efficiency of allocation of donated livers.
Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21334338      PMCID: PMC4546828          DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.02.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  22 in total

1.  Persistent ascites and low serum sodium identify patients with cirrhosis and low MELD scores who are at high risk for early death.

Authors:  Douglas M Heuman; Souheil G Abou-Assi; Adil Habib; Leslie M Williams; R Todd Stravitz; Arun J Sanyal; Robert A Fisher; Anastasios A Mihas
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 17.425

2.  Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino; S Grundy; L M Sullivan; P Wilson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-11       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  International Committee for Standardization in Haematology, International Committee on Thrombosis and Haemostasis: ICSH/ICTH recommendations for reporting prothrombin time in oral anticoagulant control.

Authors: 
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  1985-02-18       Impact factor: 5.249

5.  A prognostic model for predicting survival in cirrhosis with ascites.

Authors:  G Fernández-Esparrach; A Sánchez-Fueyo; P Ginès; J Uriz; L Quintó; P J Ventura; A Cárdenas; M Guevara; P Sort; W Jiménez; R Bataller; V Arroyo; J Rodés
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 6.  The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD).

Authors:  Patrick S Kamath; W Ray Kim
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 7.  A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease.

Authors:  P S Kamath; R H Wiesner; M Malinchoc; W Kremers; T M Therneau; C L Kosberg; G D'Amico; E R Dickson; W R Kim
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 17.425

8.  Hyponatremia and mortality among patients on the liver-transplant waiting list.

Authors:  W Ray Kim; Scott W Biggins; Walter K Kremers; Russell H Wiesner; Patrick S Kamath; Joanne T Benson; Erick Edwards; Terry M Therneau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-04       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan.

Authors:  Richard B Freeman; Russell H Wiesner; Erick Edwards; Ann Harper; Robert Merion; Robert Wolfe
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.799

10.  Incidence, predictive factors, and prognosis of the hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis with ascites.

Authors:  A Ginès; A Escorsell; P Ginès; J Saló; W Jiménez; L Inglada; M Navasa; J Clària; A Rimola; V Arroyo
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  35 in total

1.  Increasing disparity in waitlist mortality rates with increased model for end-stage liver disease scores for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma versus candidates without hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  David Goldberg; Benjamin French; Peter Abt; Sandy Feng; Andrew M Cameron
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 2.  Development of organ-specific donor risk indices.

Authors:  Sanjeev K Akkina; Sumeet K Asrani; Yi Peng; Peter Stock; W Ray Kim; Ajay K Israni
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.799

3.  Declining predictive performance of the MELD: Cause for concern or reflection of changes in clinical practice?

Authors:  Nadim Mahmud; David S Goldberg
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 4.  Overview of Staging Systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Implications for Interventional Radiology.

Authors:  Jan Hansmann; Charles E Ray
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 1.513

5.  Liver volume in the cirrhotic patient: does size matter?

Authors:  Michael T Hagan; Gregory S Sayuk; Mauricio Lisker-Melman; Kevin M Korenblat; Thomas A Kerr; William C Chapman; Jeffrey S Crippin
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 6.  Changing pattern of donor selection criteria in deceased donor liver transplant: a review of literature.

Authors:  Dronacharya Routh; Sudeep Naidu; Sanjay Sharma; Priya Ranjan; Rajesh Godara
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2013-12-05

Review 7.  Model for End-stage Liver Disease.

Authors:  Ashwani K Singal; Patrick S Kamath
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2012-12-01

Review 8.  Model for end-stage liver disease: end of the first decade.

Authors:  Sumeet K Asrani; W Ray Kim
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 6.126

9.  Comparison of seven liver allocation models with respect to lives saved among patients on the liver transplant waiting list.

Authors:  Laurence S Magder; Arie Regev; Ayse L Mindikoglu
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 3.782

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.