Literature DB >> 21717197

The effect of changes of model for end-stage liver disease score during waiting time on post-liver transplant mortality.

Mohammad A B Al-Freah1, Edward J Gane2, Vicki Livingstone3, John McCall2, Stephen Munn2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is found to be a robust predictor of mortality while on waiting list for liver transplantation. However, studies have shown inconsistent results for transplant MELD as a predictor of posttransplant mortality. AIM: To find whether utilization of MELD at listing, at transplant, or Δ MELD while waiting can predict outcome at a national transplant center, which is not part of an organ sharing network.
METHOD: Retrospective analysis of patients listed for liver transplantation at the New Zealand Liver Transplant Unit (NZLTU) with calculation of MELD score at the time of listing and at transplant with/without adjustment points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2005, 264 adult patients were listed for liver transplantation. Median age at transplant was 49 years (range 16-70) and 65% were male. The most common etiology was viral hepatitis (50%). A total of 48 patients (20%) had known HCC. MELD scores (adjusted and nonadjusted) at listing and at transplantation were similar across all primary liver diseases (P = 0.88, 0.93, respectively). Adjusted MELD scores were significantly higher in patients listed for HCC compared to those without HCC (P < 0.001; hazard ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval = 1.21-1.46). MELD scores at transplant did not correlate with either 3 or 12 months mortality (P = 0.336, 0.228, respectively). This finding was consistent whether the change of MELD during waiting time was >1 point or less (P = 0.67). Waiting time does not appear to influence posttransplant survival (P = 0.75).
CONCLUSION: In a country with a single transplant center and organ retrieval organization, the addition of MELD score to current minimal listing criteria does not improve prioritization of patients on the waiting list or predict posttransplant survival. Also, adjusting MELD score for HCC would unfairly disadvantage patients listed without HCC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HCC; Hepatic; Model; Survival; Transplantation

Year:  2011        PMID: 21717197     DOI: 10.1007/s12072-011-9287-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hepatol Int        ISSN: 1936-0533            Impact factor:   6.047


  19 in total

1.  MELD and PELD: application of survival models to liver allocation.

Authors:  R H Wiesner; S V McDiarmid; P S Kamath; E B Edwards; M Malinchoc; W K Kremers; R A Krom; W R Kim
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  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 3.  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

4.  Summary report of a national conference: Evolving concepts in liver allocation in the MELD and PELD era. December 8, 2003, Washington, DC, USA.

Authors:  Kim M Olthoff; Robert S Brown; Francis L Delmonico; Richard B Freeman; Sue V McDiarmid; Robert M Merion; J Michael Millis; John P Roberts; Abraham Shaked; Russell H Wiesner; Michael R Lucey
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.799

5.  Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function.

Authors:  Niraj M Desai; Kevin C Mange; Michael D Crawford; Peter L Abt; Adam M Frank; Joseph W Markmann; Ergun Velidedeoglu; William C Chapman; James F Markmann
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Diagnosis of functional kidney failure of cirrhosis with Doppler sonography: prognostic value of resistive index.

Authors:  A Maroto; A Ginès; J Saló; J Clària; P Ginès; L Anibarro; W Jiménez; V Arroyo; J Rodés
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  A correlation between the pretransplantation MELD score and mortality in the first two years after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Nicholas N Onaca; Marlon F Levy; Edmund Q Sanchez; Srinath Chinnakotla; Carlos G Fasola; Mark J Thomas; Jeffrey S Weinstein; Natalie G Murray; Robert M Goldstein; Goran B Klintmalm
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.799

8.  Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Robert M Merion; Robert A Wolfe; Dawn M Dykstra; Alan B Leichtman; Brenda Gillespie; Philip J Held
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers.

Authors:  Russell Wiesner; Erick Edwards; Richard Freeman; Ann Harper; Ray Kim; Patrick Kamath; Walter Kremers; John Lake; Todd Howard; Robert M Merion; Robert A Wolfe; Ruud Krom
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 10.  Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Yun Shin Chun; Ronnie T P Poon; Myron E Schwartz; Francis Y Yao; J Wallis Marsh; Sherrie Bhoori; Sung-Gyu Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  1 in total

1.  MELD-good for many, not as good for others … at least for now.

Authors:  Thomas Schiano
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 6.047

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.