Impact of MELD-based allocation on end-stage renal disease after liver transplantation.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
American Journal of Transplantation (Impact Factor: 6.19). 08/2011; 11(11):2372-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03703.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The proportion of patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT), with concomitant renal dysfunction, markedly increased after allocation by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was introduced. We examined the incidence of subsequent post-LT end-stage renal disease (ESRD) before and after the policy was implemented. Data on all adult deceased donor LT recipients between April 27, 1995 and December 31, 2008 (n = 59 242), from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, were linked with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' ESRD data. Cox regression was used to (i) compare pre-MELD and MELD eras with respect to post-LT ESRD incidence, (ii) determine the risk factors for post-LT ESRD and (iii) quantify the association between ESRD incidence and mortality. Crude rates of post-LT ESRD were 12.8 and 14.5 per 1000 patient-years in the pre-MELD and MELD eras, respectively. Covariate-adjusted post-LT ESRD risk was higher in the MELD era (hazard ratio [HR]= 1.15; p = 0.0049). African American race, hepatitis C, pre-LT diabetes, higher creatinine, lower albumin, lower bilirubin and sodium >141 mmol/L at LT were also significant predictors of post-LT ESRD. Post-LT ESRD was associated with higher post-LT mortality (HR = 3.32; p < 0.0001). The risk of post-LT ESRD, a strong predictor of post-LT mortality, is 15% higher in the MELD era. This study identified potentially modifiable risk factors of post-LT ESRD. Early intervention and modification of these risk factors may reduce the burden of post-LT ESRD.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess our experience with the use and management of everolimus-based regimens post-liver transplantation and to redefine the potential role of this drug in current clinical practice.
    World journal of transplantation. 06/2014; 4(2):122-32.
  • Source
    Journal of Hepatology 09/2014; · 10.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Simultaneous heart-liver transplantation, although rare, has become more common in the U.S. When the primary organ is a heart or liver, patients receiving an offer for the primary organ automatically receive the second, non-primary organ from that donor. This policy raises issues of equity—i.e. whether liver transplant-alone candidates bypassed by heart-liver recipients are disadvantaged. No prior published analyses have addressed this issue, and few methods have been developed as a means to measure the impact of such allocation policies. We analyzed OPTN match run data from 2007-2013 to determine whether this combined organ allocation policy disadvantages bypassed liver transplant waitlist candidates in a clinically meaningful way. Among 65 heart-liver recipients since May 2007, 42 had substantially higher priority for the heart relative to the liver, and bypassed 268 liver-alone candidates ranked 1-10 on these match runs. Bypassed patients had lower risk of waitlist removal for death or clinical deterioration compared to controls selected by match MELD score (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40-0.79), and similar risk as controls selected by laboratory MELD score (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.63-1.33) or on match runs of similar graft quality (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.37). The waiting time from bypass to subsequent transplantation was significantly longer among bypassed candidates versus controls on match runs of similar graft quality (median: 87 (IQR: 27-192) days versus 24 (5-79) days; p<0.001). Although transplant is delayed, liver transplant waitlist candidates bypassed by heart-liver recipients do not have excess mortality compared to three sets of matched controls. These analytic methods serve as a starting point to consider other potential approaches to evaluate the impact of multi-organ transplant allocation policies. Liver Transpl , 2014. © 2014 AASLD.
    Liver Transplantation 07/2014; · 3.79 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014