Michele Molinari1, Dana Jorgensen2, Subhashini Ayloo3, Stalin Dharmayan1, Christof Kaltenmeier1, Rajil B Mehta4, Naudia Jonassaint4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Division of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Surgery, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The liver transplant risk score (LTRS) was developed to stratify 90-day mortality of patients referred for liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to validate the LTRS using a new cohort of patients. METHODS: The LTRS stratifies the risk of 90-day mortality of LT recipients based on their age, body mass index, diabetes, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and need for dialysis. We assessed the performance of the LTRS using a new cohort of patients transplanted in the United States between July 2013 and June 2017. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, ABO incompatibility, redo or multivisceral transplants, partial grafts, malignancies other than hepatocellular carcinoma and fulminant hepatitis. RESULTS: We found a linear correlation between the number of points of the LTRS and 90-day mortality. Among 18 635 recipients, 90-day mortality was 2.7%, 3.8%, 5.2%, 4.8%, 6.7%, and 9.3% for recipients with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). The LTRS also stratified 1-year mortality that was 5.5%, 7.7%, 9.9%, 9.3%, 10.8%, and 15.4% for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). An inverse correlation was found between the LTRS and 4-year survival that was 82%, 79%, 78%, 82%, 78%, and 66% for patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). The LTRS remained an independent predictor after accounting for recipient sex, ethnicity, cause of liver disease, donor age, cold ischemia time, and waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: The LTRS can stratify the short- and long-term outcomes of LT recipients at the time of their evaluations irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, and primary cause of liver disease.
BACKGROUND: The liver transplant risk score (LTRS) was developed to stratify 90-day mortality of patients referred for liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to validate the LTRS using a new cohort of patients. METHODS: The LTRS stratifies the risk of 90-day mortality of LT recipients based on their age, body mass index, diabetes, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and need for dialysis. We assessed the performance of the LTRS using a new cohort of patients transplanted in the United States between July 2013 and June 2017. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, ABO incompatibility, redo or multivisceral transplants, partial grafts, malignancies other than hepatocellular carcinoma and fulminant hepatitis. RESULTS: We found a linear correlation between the number of points of the LTRS and 90-day mortality. Among 18 635 recipients, 90-day mortality was 2.7%, 3.8%, 5.2%, 4.8%, 6.7%, and 9.3% for recipients with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). The LTRS also stratified 1-year mortality that was 5.5%, 7.7%, 9.9%, 9.3%, 10.8%, and 15.4% for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). An inverse correlation was found between the LTRS and 4-year survival that was 82%, 79%, 78%, 82%, 78%, and 66% for patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 points (P < 0.001). The LTRS remained an independent predictor after accounting for recipient sex, ethnicity, cause of liver disease, donor age, cold ischemia time, and waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: The LTRS can stratify the short- and long-term outcomes of LT recipients at the time of their evaluations irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, and primary cause of liver disease.
Authors: Natasha H Dolgin; Paulo N A Martins; Babak Movahedi; Kate L Lapane; Fred A Anderson; Adel Bozorgzadeh Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Abbas Rana; Bruce Kaplan; Tun Jie; Marian Porubsky; Shahid Habib; Horacio Rilo; Angelika C Gruessner; Rainer W G Gruessner Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: J D Schold; L D Buccini; T R Srinivas; R T Srinivas; E D Poggio; S M Flechner; C Soria; D L Segev; J Fung; D A Goldfarb Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Lawrence Lau; Yamuna Kankanige; Benjamin Rubinstein; Robert Jones; Christopher Christophi; Vijayaragavan Muralidharan; James Bailey Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: A Rana; M A Hardy; K J Halazun; D C Woodland; L E Ratner; B Samstein; J V Guarrera; R S Brown; J C Emond Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Rafik M Ghobrial; Jeffery Gornbein; Randy Steadman; Natale Danino; James F Markmann; Curtis Holt; Dean Anselmo; Farin Amersi; Pauline Chen; Douglas G Farmer; Steve Han; Francisco Derazo; Sammy Saab; Leonard I Goldstein; Sue V McDiarmid; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Giuseppe Cullaro; Jessica Rubin; Neil Mehta; Francis Yao; Elizabeth C Verna; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Transplantation Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 5.385