MELD 3.0 for adolescent liver transplant candidates

被引:5
|
作者
Kwong, Allison J. [1 ]
Zhang, Ke-You [2 ]
Ebel, Noelle [2 ]
Mannalithara, Ajitha [1 ]
Kim, W. Ray [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Sch Med, Stanford, CA USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Dept Pediat, Sch Med, Stanford, CA USA
[3] 430 Broadway St,Floor 3, Redwood City, CA 94063 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/HEP.0000000000000352
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Aims: Adolescents constitute a unique waitlist cohort that is distinct from younger children. Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0, which was developed in an adult population of liver transplant candidates, is planned to replace MELD-Sodium in the current liver allocation system for both adults and adolescents aged 12-17. We evaluated the predictive performance of MELD-Sodium, MELD 3.0, and Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease for 90-day waitlist mortality risk among adolescent liver transplant registrants. Approach and Results: New waitlist registrations for primary liver transplants among individuals aged 12-17 and 18-25 for comparison were identified using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data from November 17, 2004, to December 31, 2021. The predictive performance of the current and proposed MELD and Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease scores was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c) statistic. There were 1238 eligible listings for adolescents aged 12-17 and 1740 young adults aged 18-25. In the adolescent group, 90-day survival was 97.8%, compared with 95.9% in those aged 18-25 (log-rank p = 0.005), with no significant differences when stratified by sex or indication. Among adolescents, increasing MELD 3.0 was associated with an increased hazard of mortality (HR =1.27, 95% CI: 1.18-1.37), and the c-statistic for 90-day waitlist survival using MELD 3.0 was 0.893 compared with 0.871 using MELD-Sodium and 0.852 using Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease. Conclusions: The discriminative ability of MELD 3.0 to rank adolescents according to the risk of death within 90 days was robust. Although MELD 3.0 was initially developed and validated in adults, MELD 3.0 may also improve the prediction of waitlist mortality in adolescents and better represent their urgency for liver transplants.
引用
收藏
页码:540 / 546
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] MELD 3.0: A better score for liver allocation?
    Singh, Satender Pal
    Maiwall, Rakhi
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2023, 29 (10) : 1017 - 1018
  • [22] MELD 3.0 in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease
    Mazumder, Nikhilesh R.
    Fontana, Robert J.
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF MEDICINE, 2024, 75 : 233 - 245
  • [23] MELD is MELD is MELD? Transplant center-level variation in waitlist mortality for candidates with the same biological MELD
    Ishaque, Tanveen
    Kernodle, Amber B.
    Motter, Jennifer D.
    Jackson, Kyle R.
    Chiang, Teresa P.
    Getsin, Samantha
    Boyarsky, Brian J.
    Garonzik-Wang, Jacqueline
    Gentry, Sommer E.
    Segev, Dorry L.
    Massie, Allan B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2021, 21 (10) : 3305 - 3311
  • [24] Liver Transplant Candidates With Obesity and High MELD Are Not at Increased Risk for Post Transplant Death or Graft Failure.
    Bambha, K.
    Dodge, J.
    Gralla, J.
    Biggins, S.
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 98 : 184 - 185
  • [25] Current and Immediate Delta MELD in Sick Candidates Differentially Impact Liver Transplant Rates in Low, Medium, and High MELD Regions
    Feng, Sandy
    Vittinghoff, Eric
    Dodge, Jennifer L.
    Terrault, Norah
    HEPATOLOGY, 2012, 56 : 212A - 212A
  • [26] MELD-based liver allocation has an unintended impact on renal transplant candidates.
    Shah, T
    Danovitch, G
    Wilkinson, A
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2003, 14 : 667A - 667A
  • [27] Distinct MELD trajectories in liver transplant candidates with hepatitis C and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
    Kwong, A.
    Mannalithara, A.
    Kim, W. R.
    JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2018, 68 : S715 - S716
  • [28] MELD Score Is an Important Predictor of Pretransplantation Mortality in HIV-Infected Liver Transplant Candidates
    Subramanian, Aruna
    Sulkowski, Mark
    Barin, Burc
    Stablein, Donald
    Curry, Michael
    Nissen, Nicholas
    Dove, Lorna
    Roland, Michelle
    Florman, Sander
    Blumberg, Emily
    Stosor, Valentina
    Jayaweera, D. T.
    Huprikar, Shirish
    Fung, John
    Pruett, Timothy
    Stock, Peter
    Ragni, Margaret
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 138 (01) : 159 - 164
  • [29] Natural history of liver transplant candidates listed with a low Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score
    Bari, Khurram
    Shah, Shimul
    Kaiser, Tiffany E.
    Ballinger, Brad
    HEPATOLOGY, 2015, 62 : 641A - 641A
  • [30] Waiting for liver transplant (LT): Outcomes for LT candidates listed with low MELD without exception points
    Kwong, Allison J.
    Lai, Jennifer C.
    Dodge, Jennifer L.
    Roberts, John P.
    HEPATOLOGY, 2014, 60 : 372A - 372A