4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Prognostic value of MELD score and donor quality in liver transplantation: Implications for the donor recipient match

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 1059-1062

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.03.008

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been adopted by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in 2002 as the standard priority rule for the liver transplantation waiting list. We retrospectively calculated the pretransplant MELD scores of 226 consecutive adult grafts. We did not correct for hepatocellular carcinoma comorbidity or for the etiology of liver disease. Cases were categorized according to the MELD score: class I, MELD scores between 6 and 14 (low MELD, n = 116); class II, MELD score between 15 and 24 (intermediate MELD, n = 78); class III, MELD score between 25 and 42 (high MELD, n = 32). All patients were transplanted using deceased donors. Grafts were categorized also according to donor quality (standard donor vs nonstandard donor). Sorting into categories was performed before transplant by officers of the Central-South Italian Transplant Organization overregional organ procurement agencies, namely OCST. Differences in Kaplan-Meier graft survivals (GS) between low MELD class and high MELD class were statistically significant (P < .01). Among standard donors, the 6-month GS were 83%, 94%, and 63% for the low, intermediate, and high MELD subset, respectively, differences that did not reach statistical significance. Among nonstandard donors, the 6-month GS were 77%, 71%, and 38% for the low, intermediate, and high MELD classes, respectively. Differences between low MELD class and intermediate MELD class and between low MELD class and high MELD class were statistically significant (P < .01). We strongly suggest that the utilization of nonstandard organs should be avoided for patients with high MELD scores.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available