BACKGROUND & AIMS: The US liver allocation system effectively prioritizes most liver transplant candidates by disease severity as assessed by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Yet, one in five dies on the wait-list. We aimed to determine whether clinician assessments of health status could identify this subgroup of patients at higher risk for wait-list mortality. METHODS: From 2012-2013, clinicians of all adult liver transplant candidates with laboratory MELD≥12 were asked at the clinic visit: 'How would you rate your patient's overall health today (0 = excellent, 5 = very poor)?' The odds of death/delisting for being too sick for the transplant by clinician-assessment score ≥3 vs. <3 were assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-seven liver transplant candidates (36% female) had a mean follow-up of 13 months. Men differed from women by disease aetiology (<0.01) but were similar in age and markers of liver disease severity (P > 0.05). Mean clinician assessment differed between men and women (2.3 vs. 2.6; P = 0.02). The association between clinician-assessment and MELD was ρ = 0.28 (P < 0.01). 53/347 (15%) died/were delisted. In univariable analysis, a clinician-assessment score ≥ 3 was associated with increased odds of death/delisting (2.57; 95% CI 1.42-4.66). After adjustment for MELD and age, a clinician-assessment score ≥ 3 was associated with 2.25 (95% CI 1.22-4.15) times the odds of death/delisting compared to a clinician-assessment score < 3. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized clinician assessment of health status can identify liver transplant candidates at high risk for wait-list mortality independent of MELD score. Objectifying this 'eyeball test' may inform interventions targeted at this vulnerable subgroup to optimize wait-list outcomes.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The US liver allocation system effectively prioritizes most liver transplant candidates by disease severity as assessed by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Yet, one in five dies on the wait-list. We aimed to determine whether clinician assessments of health status could identify this subgroup of patients at higher risk for wait-list mortality. METHODS: From 2012-2013, clinicians of all adult liver transplant candidates with laboratory MELD≥12 were asked at the clinic visit: 'How would you rate your patient's overall health today (0 = excellent, 5 = very poor)?' The odds of death/delisting for being too sick for the transplant by clinician-assessment score ≥3 vs. <3 were assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-seven liver transplant candidates (36% female) had a mean follow-up of 13 months. Men differed from women by disease aetiology (<0.01) but were similar in age and markers of liver disease severity (P > 0.05). Mean clinician assessment differed between men and women (2.3 vs. 2.6; P = 0.02). The association between clinician-assessment and MELD was ρ = 0.28 (P < 0.01). 53/347 (15%) died/were delisted. In univariable analysis, a clinician-assessment score ≥ 3 was associated with increased odds of death/delisting (2.57; 95% CI 1.42-4.66). After adjustment for MELD and age, a clinician-assessment score ≥ 3 was associated with 2.25 (95% CI 1.22-4.15) times the odds of death/delisting compared to a clinician-assessment score < 3. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized clinician assessment of health status can identify liver transplant candidates at high risk for wait-list mortality independent of MELD score. Objectifying this 'eyeball test' may inform interventions targeted at this vulnerable subgroup to optimize wait-list outcomes.
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
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
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
Authors: W A Knaus; F E Harrell; J Lynn; L Goldman; R S Phillips; A F Connors; N V Dawson; W J Fulkerson; R M Califf; N Desbiens; P Layde; R K Oye; P E Bellamy; R B Hakim; D P Wagner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susan L Murphy; James K Richardson; Jennifer Blackwood; Beanna Martinez; Elliot B Tapper Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Lissi Hansen; Karen S Lyons; Nathan F Dieckmann; Michael F Chang; Shirin Hiatt; Emma Solanki; Christopher S Lee Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Jennifer C Lai; Kenneth E Covinsky; Jennifer L Dodge; W John Boscardin; Dorry L Segev; John P Roberts; Sandy Feng Journal: Hepatology Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Connie W Wang; Kenneth E Covinsky; Sandy Feng; Hilary Hayssen; Dorry L Segev; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 5.799