Prioritization for liver transplantation

Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Volumn 7, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 659-668

  Cholongitas, Evangelos ^a   Germani, Giacomo ^b   Burroughs, Andrew K ^b  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

^b ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALBUMIN BLOOD LEVEL; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; ASCITES; BILIRUBIN BLOOD LEVEL; CALIBRATION; CHILD TURCOTTE PUGH SCORE; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; CRITERION VARIABLE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DONOR SELECTION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GENDER BIAS; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEPATIC ENCEPHALOPATHY; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO; KIDNEY FUNCTION; LIVER CIRRHOSIS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MODEL FOR END STAGE LIVER DISEASE; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTHROMBIN TIME; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; LIVER FAILURE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 78649907977     PISSN: 17595045     EISSN: 17595053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2010.169     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. Adam, R. & Hoti, E. Liver transplantation: the current situation. Semin. Liver Dis. 29, 3-18 (2009).
2. Cholongitas, E. et al. Systematic review: the model for end-stage liver disease-should it replace Child-Pugh's classification for assessing prognosis in cirrhosis? Aliment Pharmacol. Ther. 22, 1079-1089 (2005).
3. Freeman, R. B., Jamieson, N., Schaubel, D. E., Porte, R. J. & Villamil, F. G. Who should get a liver graft? J. Hepatol. 50, 664-673 (2009).
4. Durand, F. & Valla, D. Assessment of prognosis of cirrhosis. Semin. Liver D/'s. 28, 110-122 (2008).
5. Eurotransplant International Foundation. Eurotransplant [online], http://www.eurotransplant.org/(2010).
6. Christensen, E. Prognostic models including the Child-Pugh, MELD and Mayo risk scores-where are we and where should we go? J. Hepatol. 41, 344-350 (2004).
7. Asrani, S. & Kim, W. R. Organ allocation for chronic liver disease: model for end-stage liver disease and beyond. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 26, 209-213 (2010).
8. Neuberger, J. et al. Selection of patients for liver transplantation and allocation of donated livers in the UK. Gut 57, 252-257 (2008).
9. Feng, S. et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am. J. Transplant 6, 783-790 (2006).
10. Pugh, R., Murray-lyon, I. & Dawson, J. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br. J. Surg. 60, 646-649 (1973).
11. Durand, F. & Valla, D. Assessment of the prognosis of cirrhosis: Child-Pugh versus MELD. J. Hepatol. 42 (Suppl.), S100-S107 (2005).
12. Freeman, R. B. Jr et al. The new liver allocation system: moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy. Liver Transpl. 8, 851-858 (2002).
13. Gonwa, T. A. et al. Continued influence of preoperative renal function on outcome of orthotopic liver transplant (OLTX) in the US: where will MELD lead us? Am. J. Transplant 6, 2651-2659 (2006).
14. Papatheodoridis, G. V et al. MELD vs Child-Pugh and creatinine-modified Child-Pugh score for predicting survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. World J. Gastroenterol. 11, 3099-3104 (2005).
15. Huo. T I. et al. Proposal of a modified Child-Turcotte-Pugh scoring system and comparison with the model for end-stage liver disease for outcome prediction in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 12, 65-71 (2006).
16. Mishra, P., Desai, N., Alexander, J., Singh, D. R & Sawant, P. Applicability of MELD as a short-term prognostic indicator in patients with chronic liver disease: an Indian experience. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 22, 1232-1235 (2007).
17. Malinchoc, M. et al. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 31, 864-871 (2000).
18. Kamath, P S. et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 33, 464-470 (2001).
19. Wiesner, R. et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology 124, 91-96 (2003).
20. Heuman. D. & Mihas, A. Utility of the MELD score for assessing 3-month survival in patients with liver cirrhosis: one more positive answer. Gastroenterology 125, 992-993 (2003).
21. Cholongitas, E. et al. A systematic review of the performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the setting of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 12, 1049-1061 (2006).
22. Attia, K. A. et al. Child-Pugh-Turcott versus Meld score for predicting survival in a retrospective cohort of black African cirrhotic patients. World J. Gastroenterol. 14, 286-291 (2008).
23. Boursier, J., Cesbron, E., Tropet, A. L. & Pilette, C. Comparison and improvement of MELD and Child-Pugh score accuracies for the prediction of 6-month mortality in cirrhotic patients. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 43, 580-585 (2009).
24. Perkins, J. D. et al. Should liver transplantation in patients with model for end-stage liver disease scores < or = 14 be avoided? A decision analysis approach. Liver Transpl. 15, 242-254 (2009).
25. United Network for Organ Sharing. UNOS [online], www.unos.org (2010).
26. Merion, R. M. et al. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am. J. Transplant 5, 307-313 (2005).
27. Wiesner, R. H. Patient selection in an era of donor liver shortage: current US policy. Nat Clin. Pract. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2, 24-30 (2005).
28. Freeman, R., Wiesner, R. & Edwards, E. Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transpl. 10, 7-15 (2004).
29. Trotter, J. F., 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. 10, 995-1000 (2004).
30. Porte, R. J., Lisman, T., Tripodi, A., Caldwell, S. H. & Trotter, J. F. The International Normalized Ratio (INR) in the MELD score: problems and solutions. Am. J. Transplant 10, 1349-1353 (2010).
31. Goulding, C. et al. Assessment of reproducibility of creatinine measurement and MELD scoring in four liver transplant units in the UK. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant 25, 960-966 (2010).
32. Cholongitas, E. et al. Different methods of creatinine measurement significantly affect MELD scores. Liver Transpl. 13, 523-529 (2007).
33. Perrone, R. D., Madias, N. E. & Levey, A. S. Serum creatinine as an index of renal function: new insights into old concepts. Clin. Chem. 38, 1933-1953 (1992).
34. Levey, A. S., Perrone, R. D. & Madias, N. E. Serum creatinine and renal function. Annu. Rev. Med. 39, 465-490 (1988).
35. Lim, Y. et al. Serum sodium, renal function and survival of patients with end-stage liver disease. J. Hepatol. 52, 523-528 (2010).
36. Cholongitas, E. et al. Female liver transplant recipients with the same GFR as male recipients have lower MELD scores-a systematic bias. Am. J. Transplant 7, 685-692 (2007).
37. Moylan, C. A. et al. Disparities in liver transplantation before and after introduction of the MELD score. JAMA 300, 2371-2378 (2008).
38. Axelrod, D. A. & Pomfret, E. A. Race and sex disparities in liver transplantation: progress toward achieving equal access? JAMA 300, 2425-2426 (2008).
39. Lai, J. et al. Height explains the gender difference in wait-list mortality underthe MELD-based liver allocation system. Am. J. Transplant (in press).
40. Cholongitas, E., Germani, G., Tsochatzis, E. & Burroughs, A. K. Towards a better liver allocation system. J. Hepatol. 51, 827-828 (2009).
41. Huo, S. et al. Is the corrected-creatinine model for end-stage liver disease a feasible strategy to adjust gender difference in organ allocation for liver transplantation? Transplantation 84, 1406-1412 (2007).
42. Cholongitas, E. et al. Review article: renal function assessment in cirrhosis-difficulties and alternative measurements. Aliment Pharmacol. Ther. 26, 969-978 (2007).
43. 51Cr-EDTA clearance in patients with cirrhosis. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. doi:10.2215/CJN.03400410.
44. Sharma, P., Schaubel, D. E., Sima, C. S., Merion, R. M. & Lok, A. S. Re-weighting the model for end-stage liver disease score components. Gastroenterology 135, 1575-1581 (2008).
45. Wang, Y. W. et al. Correlation and comparison of the model for end-stage liver disease, portal pressure, and serum sodium for outcome prediction in patients with liver cirrhosis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 41, 706-712 (2007).
46. Somsouk, M. et al. Ascites improves upon [corrected] serum sodium plus [corrected] model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) for predicting mortality in patients with advanced liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol. Ther. 30, 741-748 (2009).
47. Arvaniti, V et al. Infections in patients with cirrhosis increase mortality four-fold and should be used in determining prognosis. Gastroenterology doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.06.019.
48. Heuman, D. M. et al. Persistent ascites and low serum sodium identify patients with cirrhosis and low MELD scores who are at high risk for early death. Hepatology 40, 802-810 (2004).
49. Saab, S. et al. MELD fails to measure quality of life in liver transplant candidates. Liver Transpl. 11, 218-223 (2005).
50. Atkinson, M., Paton. A. & Sherlock, S. Control of ascites in hepatic cirrhosis. Lancet 266, 128-129 (1954).
51. Sherlock, S., Summerskill, W. H., White, L. P & Phear, E. A. Portal-systemic encephalopathy; neurological complications of liver disease. Lancet 267, 454-457 (1954).
52. Kamath. P. S. & Kim. W. R. The model for endstage liver disease (MELD). Hepatology 45, 797-805 (2007).
53. Ruf, A. E. et al. Addition of serum sodium into the MELD score predicts waiting list mortality better than MELD alone. Liver Transpl. 11, 336-343 (2005).
54. Biggins, S. W. et al. Serum sodium predicts mortality in patients listed for liver transplantation. Hepatology 41, 32-39 (2005).
55. Londono, M. C. et al. MELD score and serum sodium in the prediction of survival of patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation. Gut 56, 1283-1290 (2007).
56. Huo, T. I. et al. Model for end-stage liver disease score to serum sodium ratio index as a prognostic predictor and its correlation with portal pressure in patients with liver cirrhosis. Liver Int. 27, 498-506 (2007).
57. Luca, A. et al. An integrated MELD model including serum sodium and age improves the prediction of early mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 13, 1174-1180 (2007).
58. Biggins, S. W. et al. Evidence-based incorporation of serum sodium concentration into MELD. Gastroenterology 130, 1652-1660 (2006).
59. Kim, W. R. et al. Hyponatremia and mortality among patients on the liver-transplant waiting list. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1018-1026 (2008).
60. Barber, K., Pioli, S. & Blackwell, J. Development of a UK score for patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 46, 510A (2007).
61. NHS Blood and Transplant [online], www.nhsbt.nsh.uk (2010).
62. Yun, B., Kim, W. & Benson, J. Impact of pretransplant hyponatremia on outcome following liver transplantation. Hepatology 49, 1610-1615 (2009).
63. Xiol, X. et al. Clinically relevant differences in the model for end-stage liver disease and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium scores determined at three university-based laboratories of the same area. Liver Transpl. 15, 300-305 (2009).
64. Heuman, D. M. et al. MELD-XI: a rational approach to "sickest first" liver transplantation in cirrhotic patients requiring anticoagulant therapy. Liver Transpl. 13, 30-37 (2007).
65. Tripodi, A. et al. The international normalized ratio calibrated for cirrhosis (INR (liver)) normalizes prothrombin time results for model for end-stage liver disease calculation. Hepatology 46, 520-527 (2007).
66. Huo, T. I. et al. Evaluation of the increase in model for end-stage liver disease (Delta MELD) score over time as a prognostic predictor in patients with advanced cirrhosis: risk factor analysis and comparison with initial MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh score. J. Hepatol. 42, 826-832 (2005).
67. Merion, R. M. et al. Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 9, 12-18 (2003).
68. Bambha, K. et al. Predicting survival among patients listed for liver transplantation: an assessment of serial MELD measurements. Am. J. Transplant. 4, 1798-1804 (2004).
69. Choi, P C. et al. Model for end-stage liver disease, model for end-stage liver diseasesodium and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores over time for the prediction of complications of liver cirrhosis. Liver Int. 29, 221-226 (2009).
70. Bae, W. K. et al. Usefulness of DeltaMELD/month for prediction of the mortality in the first episode of variceal bleeding patients with liver cirrhosis: comparison with CTP MELD score and DeltaCTP/month [Korean]. Korean J. Hepatol. 13, 51-60 (2007).
71. Thuluvath, R J. et al. Liver transplantation in the United States, 1999-2008. Am. J. Transplant. 10, 1003-1019 (2010).
72. Sharma, P., Schaubel, D. E., Sima, C. S., Merion, R. M. & Lok, A. S. Re-weighting the model for end-stage liver disease score components. Gastroenterology 135, 1575-1581 (2008).
73. Sharma, P., Schaubel, D. E., Guidinger, M. K. & Merion, R. M. Effect of pretransplant serum creatinine on the survival benefit of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 15, 1808-1813 (2009).
74. Jacob, M. et al. Pretransplant MELD score and post liver transplantation survival in the UK and Ireland. Liver Transpl. 10, 903-907 (2004).
75. Desai, N. M. et al. Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function. Transplantation 77, 99-106 (2004).
76. Nagler, E., Van Vlierberghe, H., Colle, I., Troisi, R. & de Hemptinne, B. Impact of MELD on shortterm and long-term outcome following liver transplantation: a European perspective. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 17, 849-856 (2005).
77. loannou, G. N. Development and validation of a model predicting graft survival after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 12, 1594-1606 (2006).
78. Burroughs, A. K. et al. Towards a better liver transplant allocation system. Liver Transpl. 13, 935-936 (2007).
79. Burroughs, A. K. et al. 3-month and 12-month mortality after first liver transplant in adults in Europe: predictive models for outcome. Lancet 367, 225-232 (2006).
80. Stewart, Z. A. et al. Increased risk of graft loss from hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation with older donors. Liver Transpl. 15, 1688-1695 (2009).
81. Halldorson, J. B., Bakthavatsalam, R., Fix, O., Reyes, J. D. & Perkins, J. D. D-MELD, a simple predictor of post liver transplant mortality for optimization of donor/recipient matching. Am. J. Transplant. 9, 318-326 (2009).
82. Volk, M. L., Lok. A. S., Pelletier. S. J., Ubel, P. A. & Hayward, R. A. Impact of the model for end-stage liver disease allocation policy on the use of highrisk organs for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 135, 1568-1574 (2008).
83. Schaubel, D. E., Sima, C. S., Goodrich, N. P, Feng, S. & Merion, R. M. The survival benefit of deceased donor liver transplantation as a function of candidate disease severity and donor quality. Am. J. Transplant. 8, 419-425 (2008).
84. Schaubel, D. E. et al. Survival benefit-based deceased-donor liver allocation. Am. J. Transplant. 9, 970-981 (2009).
85. Ravaioli, M. et al. Survival benefit after liver transplantation: a single European center experience. Transplantation 88, 826-834 (2009).
86. Lucey, M. R., Schaubel, D. E., Guidinger, M. K., Tome, S. & Merion, R. M. Effect of alcoholic liver disease and hepatitis C infection on waiting list and posttransplant mortality and transplant survival benefit. Hepatology 50, 400-06 (2009).
87. Huo. T I. et al. Comparison of four model for endstage liver disease-based prognostic systems for cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 14, 837-844 (2008).
88. Biselli, M. et al. Six score systems to evaluate candidates with advanced cirrhosis for orthotopic liver transplant: which is the winner? Liver Transpl. 16, 964-973 (2010).
89. Schemper, M. Predictive accuracy and explained variation. Stat. Med. 22, 2299-2308 (2003).
90. Kalil, A. C, Mattel, J., Florescu, D. F., Sun, J. & Kalil, R. S. Recommendations for the assessment and reporting of multivariable logistic regression in transplantation literature. Am. J. Transplant. 10, 1686-1694 (2010).
91. Cucchetti, A. et al. Artificial neural network is superior to MELD in predicting mortality of patients with end-stage liver disease. Gut 56, 253-258 (2007).
92. Lucey, M. R. How will patients be selected for transplantation in the future? Liver Transpl. 10, S90-S92 (2004).
93. Martin, A. P., Bartels, M., Hauss, J. & Fangmann, J. Overview of the MELD score and the UNOS adult liver allocation system. Transplant Proc. 39, 3169-3174 (2007).
94. Schaffer, R. L. III, Kulkarni, S., Harper, A., Millis, J. M. & Cronin, D. C. The sickest first? Disparities with model for end-stage liver disease-based organ allocation: one region's experience. Liver Transpl. 9, 1211-1215 (2003).
95. Dureja, P & Lucey, M. R. Disparities in liver transplantation in the post-model for end-stage liver disease era: are we there yet? Hepatology 50, 981-984 (2009).
96. Weismuller, T. J. et al. The introduction of MELD-based organ allocation impacts 3-month survival after liver transplantation by influencing pretransplant patient characteristics. Transpl. Int. 22, 970-978 (2009).
97. Washburn, W. K., Meo, N. A., Halff, G. A., Roberts, J. P. & Feng, S. Factors influencing liver transplant length of stay at two large-volume transplant centers. Liver Transpl. 15, 1570-1578 (2009).
98. Foxton, M. R. et al. Increased model for endstage liver disease score at the time of liver transplant results in prolonged hospitalization and overall intensive care unit costs. Liver Transpl. 16, 668-677 (2010).
99. Egan, T. M. et al. Development of the new lung allocation system in the United States. Am. J. Transplant. 6, 1212-1227 (2006).
100. Byrne, T. et al. Does MELD score infIuence posttransplant quality of life? Hepatology 40, 765A (2004).
101. Kamath, P S. & Kim, W. R. Is the change in MELD score a better indicator of mortality than baseline MELD score? Liver Transpl. 9, 19-21 (2003).
102. Neuberger, J. Allocation of donor livers-is MELD enough? Liver Transpl. 10, 908-910 (2004).
103. Freeman, R. B. Mathematical models and behavior: assessing delta MELD for liver allocation. Am. J. Transplant. 4, 1735-1736 (2004).