4.7 Article

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) predicts nontransplant surgical mortality in patients with cirrhosis

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 242, 期 2, 页码 244-251

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000171327.29262.e0

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to determine the ability of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to predict 30-day postoperative mortality for patients with cirrhosis undergoing nontransplant surgical procedures. Summary Background Data: The Child-Pugh class historically has been used by clinicians to assist in management decisions involving patients with cirrhosis. However, this classification scheme has a number of limitations. Recently, MELD was introduced. It has been shown to be highly predictive of mortality in a variety of clinical scenarios. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis undergoing nontransplant surgical procedures between January 1, 1996, and January 1, 2002, at a single center were analyzed. The preoperative MELD score was calculated for all patients, and the MELD's performance in predicting 30-day mortality was determined using multivariate regression techniques. Results: A total of 140 surgical procedures were identified and analyzed. The 30-day mortality rate was 16.4%. The mean admission MELD score for the patients who died (23.3, 95% confidence interval 19.6-27.0) was significantly different from those patients surviving beyond 30 days (16.9, 15.6-18.2), P = 0.0003. The c-statistic for MELD score predicting 30-day mortality was 0.72. Further subgroup analysis of 67 intra-abdominal surgeries showed an in-hospital mortality of 23.9%. The mean MELD score for patients dying (24.8, 20.4-29.3) was significantly different from survivors (16.2, 14.2-18.2), P = 0.0001. The c-statistic for this subgroup was 0.80. Conclusions: The MELD score, as an objective scale of disease severity in patients with cirrhosis, shows promise as being a useful preoperative predictor of surgical mortality risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据