Literature DB >> 21898487

End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates.

Pratima Sharma1, Douglas E Schaubel, Qi Gong, Mary Guidinger, Robert M Merion.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Candidates with fulminant hepatic failure (Status-1A) receive the highest priority for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States. However, no studies have compared wait-list mortality risk among end-stage liver disease (ESLD) candidates with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores to those listed as Status-1A. We aimed to determine if there are MELD scores for ESLD candidates at which their wait-list mortality risk is higher than that of Status-1A, and to identify the factors predicting wait-list mortality among those who are Status-1A. Data were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for adult LT candidates (n = 52,459) listed between September 1, 2001, and December 31, 2007. Candidates listed for repeat LT as Status-1 A were excluded. Starting from the date of wait listing, candidates were followed for 14 days or until the earliest occurrence of death, transplant, or granting of an exception MELD score. ESLD candidates were categorized by MELD score, with a separate category for those with calculated MELD > 40. We compared wait-list mortality between each MELD category and Status-1A (reference) using time-dependent Cox regression. ESLD candidates with MELD > 40 had almost twice the wait-list mortality risk of Status-1A candidates, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of HR = 1.96 (P = 0.004). There was no difference in wait-list mortality risk for candidates with MELD 36-40 and Status-1A, whereas candidates with MELD < 36 had significantly lower mortality risk than Status-1A candidates. MELD score did not significantly predict wait-list mortality among Status-1A candidates (P = 0.18). Among Status-1A candidates with acetaminophen toxicity, MELD was a significant predictor of wait-list mortality (P < 0.0009). Posttransplant survival was similar for Status-1A and ESLD candidates with MELD > 20 (P = 0.6).
CONCLUSION: Candidates with MELD > 40 have significantly higher wait-list mortality and similar posttransplant survival as candidates who are Status-1A, and therefore, should be assigned higher priority than Status-1A for allocation. Because ESLD candidates with MELD 36-40 and Status-1A have similar wait-list mortality risk and posttransplant survival, these candidates should be assigned similar rather than sequential priority for deceased donor LT.
Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21898487      PMCID: PMC3235236          DOI: 10.1002/hep.24632

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hepatology        ISSN: 0270-9139            Impact factor:   17.425


  12 in total

1.  Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure: an assessment of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and King's College Hospital criteria.

Authors:  Radha K Dhiman; Sanjay Jain; Uma Maheshwari; Ashish Bhalla; Navneet Sharma; Jasmina Ahluwalia; Ajay Duseja; Yogesh Chawla
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  Fulminant hepatitis A virus infection in the United States: Incidence, prognosis, and outcomes.

Authors:  Ryan M Taylor; Timothy Davern; Santiago Munoz; Stephen-Huy Han; Brendan McGuire; Anne M Larson; Linda Hynan; William M Lee; Robert J Fontana
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 17.425

3.  MELD score as a predictor of liver failure and death in patients with acetaminophen-induced liver injury.

Authors:  Lars E Schmidt; Fin Stolze Larsen
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 17.425

4.  The survival benefit of liver transplantation.

Authors:  Robert M Merion; Douglas E Schaubel; Dawn M Dykstra; Richard B Freeman; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index.

Authors:  S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  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

7.  MELD score as a predictor of pretransplant and posttransplant survival in OPTN/UNOS status 1 patients.

Authors:  Walter K Kremers; Marrije van IJperen; W Ray Kim; Richard B Freeman; Ann M Harper; Patrick S Kamath; Russell H Wiesner
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 17.425

8.  Liver and intestine transplantation in the United States 1998-2007.

Authors:  C L Berg; D E Steffick; E B Edwards; J K Heimbach; J C Magee; W K Washburn; G V Mazariegos
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 8.086

9.  Survival benefit-based deceased-donor liver allocation.

Authors:  D E Schaubel; M K Guidinger; S W Biggins; J D Kalbfleisch; E A Pomfret; P Sharma; R M Merion
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 8.086

10.  MELD is superior to King's college and Clichy's criteria to assess prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure.

Authors:  Silvina E Yantorno; Walter K Kremers; Andrés E Ruf; Julio J Trentadue; Luis G Podestá; Federico G Villamil
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.799

View more
  31 in total

1.  Postoperative resource utilization and survival among liver transplant recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease score ≥ 40: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Filipe S Cardoso; Constantine J Karvellas; Norman M Kneteman; Glenda Meeberg; Pedro Fidalgo; Sean M Bagshaw
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05

Review 2.  Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure.

Authors:  Sumeet K Asrani; Douglas A Simonetto; Patrick S Kamath
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Graft Reconditioning before Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  Dieter P Hoyer; Thomas Minor
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2016-07-29

4.  End-stage liver disease patients with MELD >40 have higher waitlist mortality compared to Status 1A patients.

Authors:  Joseph Ahn; Taft Bhuket; Sasan Mosadeghi; Catherine Frenette; Benny Liu; Robert J Wong
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 6.047

Review 5.  Liver transplantation in acute-on-chronic liver failure: lessons learnt from acute liver failure setting.

Authors:  Mettu Srinivas Reddy; Rajesh Rajalingam; Mohamed Rela
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 6.047

Review 6.  Model for End-stage Liver Disease.

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

7.  Share 35 changes in center-level liver acceptance practices.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Matthew Levine; Seth Karp; Richard Gilroy; Peter L Abt
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.799

8.  Current Status of Liver Allocation in the United States.

Authors:  Saleh Elwir; John Lake
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2016-03

9.  Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Benjamin French; James D Lewis; Frank I Scott; Ronac Mamtani; Richard Gilroy; Scott D Halpern; Peter L Abt
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 10.  Advances in liver transplantation allocation systems.

Authors:  Michael L Schilsky; Maryam Moini
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.