Liver transplant recipient selection: MELD vs. clinical judgment

被引:28
作者
Fink, MA [1 ]
Angus, PW
Gow, PJ
Berry, SR
Wang, BZ
Muralidharan, V
Christophi, C
Jones, RM
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Austin Hosp, Heidelberg, Vic 3084, Australia
[2] Liver Transplant Unit Victoria, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1002/lt.20428
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Minimization of death while waiting for liver transplantation involves accurate prioritization according to clinical status and appropriate allocation of donor livers. Clinical judgment in the Liver Transplant Unit Victoria (LTUV) was compared with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in a retrospective analysis of the LTUV database over the 2-year period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2004. A total of 1,118 prioritization decisions occurred. Decisions were concordant in 758 (68%), comparing priorities assigned by clinical judgment with those assigned by MELD, P < 0.01. A total of 263 allocation decisions occurred. Decisions were concordant in 190 (72%) and 203 (77%) of the cases, comparing donor liver allocation with prioritization by MELD and clinical judgment, respectively. Of the 52 patients allocated a liver, only 23 would have been allocated on the basis of MELD while 29 had been prioritized on the waiting list in the week prior to transplantation. A total of 10 patients died on the waiting list in the 2-year period (annual adult waiting list mortality is 9.3%). Patients who subsequently died waiting were 3 times as likely to be prioritized by MELD as clinical judgment (29% vs. 9%, respectively). One half (3 of 6) of the patients who could have received a donor liver but who died waiting would have been allocated the organ on the basis of MELD. In conclusion, an allocation process based on MELD rather than clinical judgment would significantly alter organ allocation in Australia and may reduce waiting list mortality.
引用
收藏
页码:621 / 626
页数:6
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   A model to predict severe HCV-related disease following liver transplantation [J].
Berenguer, M ;
Crippin, J ;
Gish, R ;
Bass, N ;
Bostrom, A ;
Netto, G ;
Alonzo, J ;
Garcia-Kennedy, R ;
Rayón, JM ;
Wright, TL .
HEPATOLOGY, 2003, 38 (01) :34-41
[2]   Contribution of donor age to the recent decrease in patient survival among HCV-infected liver transplant recipients [J].
Berenguer, M ;
Prieto, M ;
San Juan, F ;
Rayón, JM ;
Martinez, F ;
Carrasco, D ;
Moya, A ;
Orbis, F ;
Mir, J ;
Berenguer, J .
HEPATOLOGY, 2002, 36 (01) :202-210
[3]   Impact of cytomegalovirus infection, year of transplantation, and donor age on outcomes after liver transplantation for hepatitis C [J].
Burak, KW ;
Kremers, WK ;
Batts, KP ;
Wiesner, RH ;
Rosen, CB ;
Razonable, RR ;
Paya, CV ;
Charlton, MR .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2002, 8 (04) :362-369
[4]   The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation [J].
Busuttil, RW ;
Tanaka, K .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2003, 9 (07) :651-663
[5]   Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan [J].
Freeman, RB ;
Wiesner, RH ;
Edwards, E ;
Harper, A ;
Merion, R ;
Wolfe, R .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 10 (01) :7-15
[6]   The new liver allocation system: Moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy [J].
Freeman, RB ;
Wiesner, RH ;
Harper, A ;
McDiarmid, SV ;
Lake, J ;
Edwards, E ;
Merion, R ;
Wolfe, R ;
Turcotte, J ;
Teperman, L .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2002, 8 (09) :851-858
[7]  
Harper Ann M, 2002, Clin Transpl, P79
[8]   A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts [J].
Malinchoc, M ;
Kamath, PS ;
Gordon, FD ;
Peine, CJ ;
Rank, J ;
ter Borg, PCJ .
HEPATOLOGY, 2000, 31 (04) :864-871
[9]  
TROTTER JF, 2004, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V15, P1871
[10]   Advancing donor liver age and rapid fibrosis progression following transplantation for hepatitis C [J].
Wali, M ;
Harrison, RF ;
Gow, PJ ;
Mutimer, D .
GUT, 2002, 51 (02) :248-252