Selecting an optimal cutoff value for creatinine in the model for end-stage liver disease equation.
ABSTRACT The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) is used for organ allocation in liver transplantation. The maximal serum creatinine (Cr) level for MELD is set at 4.0 mg/dL; however, there was no outcome data to justify this strategy.
Ninety-two patients with cirrhosis with Cr level >4 mg/dL were selected from 1438 patients and compared with MELD score-matched controls for three-month and six-month mortality.
At three months, patients with Cr level >4 mg/dL had a significantly higher mortality rate than the 184 controls with a lower Cr level (44.6% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.015). This trend was still significant at six months: the mortality rate was 62% in the index group vs. 45.1% in the control group (p = 0.011). The difference between the index and control groups was the smallest (2.5% at three months and 3.4% at six months) when Cr was up-scaled to 5.5 mg/dL. The predictive accuracy of the MELD was estimated by using area under receiver-operating characteristic (AUC) curve. Only the cutoff of 5.5 mg/dL at six months displayed a higher AUC (0.753).
A cutoff at 5.5 mg/dL may be more appropriate for the MELD. The MELD for patients with cirrhosis with advanced renal insufficiency deserves re-evaluation.
Article: Model for End-stage Liver Disease.[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, initially developed to predict survival following transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was subsequently found to be accurate predictor of mortality amongst patents with end-stage liver disease. Since 2002, MELD score using 3 objective variables (serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and institutional normalized ratio) has been used worldwide for listing and transplanting patients with end-stage liver disease allowing transplanting sicker patients first irrespective of the wait time on the list. MELD score has also been shown to be accurate predictor of survival amongst patients with alcoholic hepatitis, following variceal hemorrhage, infections in cirrhosis, after surgery in patients with cirrhosis including liver resection, trauma, and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). Although, MELD score is closest to the ideal score, there are some limitations including its inaccuracy in predicting survival in 15-20% cases. Over the last decade, many efforts have been made to further improve and refine MELD score. Until, a better score is developed, liver allocation would continue based on the currently used MELD score.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND/AIM: The clinical aspects of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing maintenance dialysis are largely unknown. We aimed to investigate the long-term survival and prognostic determinants of dialysis patients with HCC. METHODS: A total of 2502 HCC patients, including 30 dialysis patients and 90 age-, sex- and treatment-matched controls, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Dialysis patients more often had dual viral hepatitis B and C, lower serum α-fetoprotein level, worse performance status, higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score than non-dialysis patients and matched controls (p all < 0.05). There was no significant difference in long-term survival between dialysis and non-dialysis patients and matched controls (p=0.684 and 0.373, respectively). In the Cox proportional hazards model, duration of dialysis < 40 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.67, p=0.019) and ascites (HR: 5.275, p=0.019) were independent predictors of poor prognosis for dialysis patients with HCC. Survival analysis disclosed that the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) provided a better prognostic ability than the MELD system. Among the 4 currently used staging systems, the Japan Integrated Scoring (JIS) system was a more accurate prognostic model for dialysis patients; a JIS score≧2 significantly predicted a worse survival (p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HCC undergoing maintenance dialysis do not have a worse long-term survival. A longer duration of dialysis and absence of ascites formation are associated with a better outcome in dialysis patients. The CTP classification is a more feasible prognostic marker to indicate the severity of cirrhosis, and the JIS system may be a better staging model for outcome prediction.Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 11/2012; 28(2). DOI:10.1111/jgh.12062 · 3.63 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adoption of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) to select and prioritize patients for liver transplantation represented a turning point in organ allocation. Prioritization of transplant recipients switched from time accrued on the waiting list to the principle of "sickest first". The MELD score incorporates three simple laboratory parameters (serum creatinine and bilirubin, and INR for prothrombin time) and stratifies patients according to their disease severity in an objective and continuous ranking scale. Concordance statistics have demonstrated its high accuracy in stratifying patients according to their risk of dying in the short-term (three months). Further validations of MELD as a predictor of survival at various temporal end-points have been obtained in independent patient cohorts with a broad spectrum of chronic liver disease. The MELD-based liver graft allocation policy has led to a reduction in waitlist new registrations and mortality, shorter waiting times, and an increase in transplants, without altering overall graft and patient survival rates after transplantation. MELD limitations are related either to the inter-laboratory variability of the parameters included in the score, or to the inability of the formula to predict mortality accurately in specific settings. For some conditions, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, widely accepted MELD corrections have been devised. For others, such as persistent ascites and hyponatremia, attempts to improve MELD's predicting power are currently underway, but await definite validation.Journal of Hepatology 11/2010; 54(6):1297-306. DOI:10.1016/j.jhep.2010.11.008 · 10.40 Impact Factor