4.6 Article

Predictive value of Refit Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Refit Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Na, and pre-existing scoring system for 3-month mortality in Korean patients with cirrhosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 1209-1216

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12156

Keywords

liver cirrhosis; MELD; mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been widely used for predicting short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis in the U.S. A modification of the MELD score was published in 2011. This was validated for Korean patients with cirrhosis. Methods The medical records of patients with cirrhosis who were admitted to Konkuk University Hospital from 2006 to 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. The predictive value for 3-month mortality was compared between the Refit MELD, Refit MELD-Na, MELD, MELD-Na, and Child-Pugh score. The comparison was performed by calculating the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). Results A total of 882 patients were enrolled and 77 (8.7%) died within 3 months. The most common etiology was alcohol (45.4%) followed by hepatitis B (34.2%). The AUROCs of the Refit MELD, Refit MELD-Na, MELD, MELD-Na, and Child-Pugh score were 0.842, 0.817, 0.844, 0.848, and 0.831, respectively. The Refit MELD-Na showed a lower value than MELD-Na (P=0.0005), MELD (P=0.0190), and the Refit MELD (P=0.0174). When the patients with hepatitis B, C, and alcoholic cirrhosis were analyzed, the AUROCs were 0.960, 0.920, 0.953, 0.951, 0.896, 0.959, 0.956, 0.947, 0.956, 0.943, and 0.746, 0.707, 0.752, 0.747, 0.755. Conclusions The improvement in predictive value for 3-month mortality was not definite. The Refit MELD-Na especially showed the lowest value. This result may have been due to differences in underlying etiology of cirrhosis between Korea and the U.S. Thus, a larger prospective study is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available