Impact of the Model for Endstage Liver Disease score on liver transplantation

Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 294-297

  Trotter, James F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Liver transplantation; Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score; Organ allocation

Indexed keywords

DISEASE SEVERITY; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MODEL FOR ENDSTAGE LIVER DISEASE SCORE; ORGAN DONOR; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; SURVIVAL;

EID: 34249111962     PISSN: 10872418     EISSN: 15317013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0b013e32814f1ca0     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Wiesner R. Evidence-based evolution of the MELD/PELD liver allocation policy. Liver Transpl 2005; 11:261-263.
2. Olthoff KM, Brown RS Jr, Delmonico FL, et al. Summary report of a national conference: Evolving concepts in liver allocation in the MELD and PELD era. December 8, 2003, Washington, DC, USA. Liver Transpl 2004; 10(10 Suppl 2):A6-A22.
3. Freeman RB Jr, Wiesner RH, Roberts JP, et al. Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD. Am J Transplant 2004; 4 (Suppl 9):114-131.
4. Institute of Medicine Committee on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Policy. Organ Procurement and Transplantation: Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. pp. 1-29.
5. Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, et al. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 2000; 31:864-871.
6. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Available online: http://www.optn.org/latestData/rptData.asp (accessed 7 January 2007).
7. Habib S, Berk B, Chang CC, et al. MELD and prediction of postliver transplantation survival. Liver Transpl 2006; 12:440-447.
8. Yoo HY, Thuluvath PJ. Short-term postliver transplant survival after the introduction of MELD scores for organ allocation in the United States. Liver Int 2005; 25:536-541.
9. Kanwal F, Dulai GS, Spiegel BM, et al. A comparison of liver transplantation outcomes in the pre vs. post-MELD eras. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21:169-177.
10. Machicao VI, Srinivas TR, Hemming AW, et al. Impact of implementation of the MELD scoring system on the prevalence and incidence of chronic renal disease following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2006; 12:754-761.
11. Gonwa TA. Continued influence of preoperative renal function on outcome of orthotopic liver transplant (OLTX) in the US: where will MELD lead us? Am J Transplant 2006; 6:2651-2659.
12. Gonwa T. Combined kidney liver transplant in the MELD era: where are we going? Liver Transpl 2005; 11:1022-1025.
13. Freeman RB, Edwards EB, Harper AM. Waiting list removal rates among patients with chronic and malignant liver diseases. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:1416-1421.
14. Wiesner RH, Freeman RB, Mulligan DC. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: the impact of the MELD allocation policy. Gastroenterology 2004; 127:S261-S267.
15. Freeman RB, Mithoefer A, Ruthazer R, et al. Optimizing staging for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: A retrospective analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database. Liver Transpl 2006; 12:1504-1511. A review of the UNOS database relative to difficulties in the accurate diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates.
16. Merion RM, Schaubel DE, Dykstra DM, et al. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:307-313.
17. Trotter JF, Osgood MJ. MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 291:1871-1874.
18. Trotter JF, Olson J, Lefkowitz J, et al. Changes in international normalized ratio (INR) and Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) based on selection of clinical laboratory. Am J Transpl 2007; in press.
19. Trotter JF, Brimhall B, Arjal R, Phillips C. Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10:995-1000.
20. Robert A, Chazouilleres O. Prothrombin time in liver failure: time, ratio, activity percentage, or international normalized ratio. Hepatology 1996; 24:1392-1394.
21. Kovacs MH, Wong A, MacKinnon K, et al. Assessment of the validity of the INR system for patients with liver impairment. Thrombosis and Hemostasis 1994; 71:727-730.
22. Denson KWE, Reed SV, Haddon ME, et al. Comparative studies of rabbit and human recombinant tissue factor reagents. Thromb Res 1999; 94:255-261.
23. Heuman DM, Mihas AA, Habib A, et al. MELD-XI: A rational approach to 'sickest first' liver transplantation in cirrhotic patients requiring anticoagulant therapy. Liver Transpl 2007; 13:30-37.
24. Biggins SW, Kim WR, Terrault NA, et al. Evidence-based incorporation of serum sodium concentration into MELD. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:1652-1660.
25. Ruf AE, Kremers WK, Chavez LL, et al. Addition of serum sodium into the MELD score predicts waiting list mortality better than MELD alone. Liver Transpl 2005; 11:336-343.
26. Biggins SW, Rodriguez HJ, Bacchetti P, et al. Serum sodium predicts mortality in patients listed for liver transplantation. Hepatology 2005; 41:32-39.
27. Rodriguez-Luna H, Vargas HE, Moss A, et al. Regional variations in peer reviewed liver allocation under the MELD system. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:2244-2247.
28. Freeman RB Jr, Gish RG, Harper A, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception guidelines: Results and recommendations from the MELD exception study group and conference (MESSAGE) for the approval of patients who need liver transplantation with diseases not considered by the standard MELD formula. Liver Transpl 2006; 12 (Suppl 3):S128-S136. A comprehensive overview designed to establish national criteria for MELD exception scores.