Summary report of a national conference: Evolving concepts in liver allocation in the MELD and PELD era. December 8, 2003, Washington, DC, USA

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

The BAR Score Predicts and Stratifies Outcomes Following Liver Retransplantation: Insights From a Retrospective Cohort Study

Liver retransplantation (reLT) yields poorer outcomes than primary liver transplantation, necessitating careful patient selection to avoid futile reLT. We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess reLT outcomes and identify associated risk factors. All adult patients who underwent a first reLT at the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2021 (N = 111) were included. Graft- and patient survival were assessed via Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of graft loss. Five-year graft- and patient survival rates were 64.9% and 67.6%, respectively. The balance of risk (BAR) score was found to correlate with and be predictive of graft loss and patient death. The BAR score also predicted sepsis (AUC 0.676) and major complications (AUC 0.720). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified sepsis [HR 5.179 (95% CI 2.575-10.417), p < 0.001] as the most significant independent risk factor for graft loss. At a cutoff of 18 points, the 5 year graft survival rate fell below 50%. The BAR score, a simple and easy to use score available at the time of organ acceptance, predicts and stratifies clinically relevant outcomes following reLT and may aid in clinical decision-making.

Geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation

Since the Final Rule regarding transplantation was published in 1999, organ distribution policies have been implemented to reduce geographic disparity. While a recent change in liver allocation, termed acuity circles, eliminated the donor service area as a unit of distribution to decrease the geographic disparity of waitlisted patients to liver transplantation, recently published results highlight the complexity of addressing geographic disparity. From geographic variation in donor supply, as well as liver disease burden and differing model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores of candidates and MELD scores necessary to receive liver transplantation, to the urban-rural disparity in specialty care access, and to neighborhood deprivation (community measure of socioeconomic status) in liver transplant access, addressing disparities of access will require a multipronged approach at the patient, transplant center, and national level. Herein, we review the current knowledge of these disparities-from variation in larger (regional) to smaller (census tract or zip code) levels to the common etiologies of liver disease, which are particularly affected by these geographic boundaries. The geographic disparity in liver transplant access must balance the limited organ supply with the growing demand. We must identify patient-level factors that contribute to their geographic disparity and incorporate these findings at the transplant center level to develop targeted interventions. We must simultaneously work at the national level to standardize and share patient data (including socioeconomic status and geographic social deprivation indices) to better understand the factors that contribute to the geographic disparity. The complex interplay between organ distribution policy, referral patterns, and variable waitlisting practices with the proportion of high MELD patients and differences in potential donor supply must all be considered to create a national policy strategy to address the inequities in the system.

A Validated Composite Score Demonstrates Potential Superiority to MELD-Based Systems in Predicting Short-Term Survival in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis-A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a severe complication in cirrhosis patients with ascites, leading to high mortality rates if not promptly treated. However, specific prediction models for SBP are lacking.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare commonly used cirrhotic prediction models (CTP score, MELD, MELD-Na, iMELD, and MELD 3.0) for short-term mortality prediction and develop a novel model to improve mortality prediction.

METHODS

Patients with the first episode of SBP were included. Prognostic values for mortality were assessed using AUROC analysis. A novel prediction model was developed and validated.

RESULTS

In total, 327 SBP patients were analyzed, with HBV infection as the main etiologies. MELD 3.0 demonstrated the highest AUROC among the traditional models. The novel model, incorporating HRS, exhibited superior predictive accuracy for in-hospital in all patients and 3-month mortality in HBV-cirrhosis, with AUROC values of 0.827 and 0.813 respectively, surpassing 0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

MELD 3.0 score outperformed the CTP score and showed a non-significant improvement compared to other MELD-based scores, while the novel SBP model demonstrated impressive accuracy. Internal validation and an HBV-related cirrhosis subgroup sensitivity analysis supported these findings, highlighting the need for a specific prognostic model for SBP and the importance of preventing HRS development to improve SBP prognosis.

Liver transplantation in Acute-on-Chronic liver failure: Timing of transplantation and selection of patient population

Acute-on-Chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinical syndrome with high short-term mortality. Alcoholic ACLF is prevalent in European and American countries, while hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related ACLF is more common in the Asia-Pacific region. There is still a lack of a unified definition standard for ACLF, due to various etiologies and pathogeneses in different continents. Currently, liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for liver failure. However, the shortage of liver sources is still a global problem, which seriously limits the clinical application of an LT. Premature LT aggravates the shortage of liver resources to a certain extent, and too much delay significantly increases the risk of complications and death. Therefore, this study reviews the current literature on LT in the treatment of ACLF and discusses further the challenges for ACLF patients, the timing of LT for ACLF, and the choice of the patient population.

From Child-Pugh to MELD score and beyond: Taking a walk down memory lane

The Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) and the MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores were designed to predict the outcome of decompressive therapy for portal hypertension. They were prospectively validated to predict mortality risk in patients with a wide spectrum of liver disease etiology and severity. Unlike the CTP score, the MELD score was derived from prospectively gathered data. Its calculation was based on serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, international normalized ratio (INR) and etiology of liver disease. Instituting a continuous disease severity score that de-emphasizes waiting time resulted in better categorization of waiting patients and enhanced transparency. The US instituted the MELD system in 2002 and soon thereafter, MELD-based liver allocation was adopted throughout the world including Latin America. The most significant impact of MELD-based policies has been the reduction of waiting-list mortality. In the years after implementation of the MELD system, several options have been proposed to improve the MELD score's accuracy. Adding serum sodium (MELD-Na) increased the accuracy of the score in predicting waiting list mortality, thus completing the original MELD score as a prognostic model in liver allocation. On the 20th anniversary of the creation of MELD score we present a brief account of its development, its use to stratify patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation as well as its adoption as liver allocation system .

Liver Transplantation in Patients with Acute-onChronic Liver Failure: Challenging the Limits

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is one of the main causes of death on the waiting list. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment for patients with ACLF and therefore it should be considered in all cases. However, the applicability of LT in patients with ACLF is challenging, given the scarcity of donors and the high short-term mortality of these patients. Organ allocation has traditionally been prioritised according to the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) system. However, the accuracy of MELD score is limited in patients with ACLF. In this article, the authors review the outcomes of patients with ACLF before and after LT, highlighting its clinical course, the feasibility of LT in the sickest patients, the role of the organ allocation system, and possible indicators of futility.

Removing administrative boundaries using a gravity model for a national liver allocation system

Geographic disparities emerged as an increasing issue in organ allocation policies. Because of the sequential and discrete geographical models used for allocation scores, artificial regional boundaries may impede the access of candidates with the greatest medical urgency to vital organs. This article describes a continuous geographical allocation model that provides accurate organ access by introducing a multiplicative interaction between the patient's condition and the distance to the graft by using a gravity model. Patients with the most urgent need will thus have access to organs from farther away, while those in less urgent need may only have access to organs geographically closer. Compared to the previous French liver allocation scheme, the gravity model precluded transplantations for candidates with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≤ 14 for decompensated cirrhosis from 10.3% to 0.6%. Death and delisting while on the waiting list at 1 year also decreased from 30.1% to 22.4% for MELD ≥ 35. Waiting list (cumulative hazard ratio (CHR)  0.84 after adjustment) and posttransplant survival improved significantly (hazard ratio = 0.83 after adjustment). This new liver allocation system provides more equitable access to liver transplants and an efficient and safe alternative to administrative boundaries for geographical models in organ allocation.

Longterm Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Recent data have demonstrated >80% 1-year survival probability after liver transplantation (LT) for patients with severe acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, longterm outcomes and complications are still unknown for this population. Our aim was to compare longterm patient and graft survival among patients transplanted across all grades of ACLF. We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing database for the years 2004-2017. Patients with ACLF were identified using the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure criteria. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to determine patient and graft survival and associated predictors of mortality in adjusted models. A total of 56,801 patients underwent transplantation of which 31,024 (54.6%) had no ACLF, 8757 (15.4%) had ACLF grade 1, 9039 (15.9%) had ACLF grade 2, and 7891 (14.1%) had ACLF grade 3. The 5-year patient survival after LT was lower in the ACLF grade 3 patients compared with the other groups (67.7%; P < 0.001), although after year 1, the percentage decrease in survival was similar among all groups. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. Infection was the primary cause of death among all patient groups in the first year. After the first year, infection was the main cause of death in patients transplanted with ACLF grade 1 (32.1%), ACLF grade 2 (33.9%), and ACLF grade 3 (37.6%), whereas malignancy was the predominant cause of death in those transplanted with no ACLF (28.5%). In conclusion, patients transplanted with ACLF grade 3 had lower 5-year survival as compared with patients with ACLF grades 0-2, but mortality rates were not significantly different after the first year following LT. Graft survival was excellent across all ACLF groups.

Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: Science or Fiction?

Acute clinical deterioration of a patient with chronic liver disease remains a decisive time point both in terms of medical management and prognosis. This condition, also known as acute decompensation (AD), is an important event determining a crossroad in the trajectory of patients. A significant number of patients with AD may develop hepatic or extrahepatic organ failure, or both, which defines the syndrome acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), and ACLF is associated with a high morbidity and short-term mortality. ACLF may occur at any phase during chronic liver disease and is pathogenetically defined by systemic inflammation and immune metabolic dysfunction. When organ failures develop in the presence of cirrhosis, especially extrahepatic organ failures, liver transplantation (LT) may be the only curative treatment. This review outlines the evidence supporting LT in ACLF patients, highlighting the role of timing, bridging to LT, and possible indicators of futility. Importantly, prospective studies on ACLF and transplantation are urgently needed.

Comparing Eight Prognostic Scores in Predicting Mortality of Patients with Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure Who Were Admitted to an ICU: A Single-Center Experience

Limited data is available on long-term outcome predictions for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Assessing the reliability and accuracy of several mortality prediction models for these patients is helpful. Two hundred forty-nine consecutive patients with ACLF and admittance to the liver ICU in a single center in northern Taiwan between December 2012 and March 2015 were enrolled in the study and were tracked until February 2017. Ninety-one patients had chronic hepatitis B-related cirrhosis. Clinical features and laboratory data were collected at or within 24 h of the first ICU admission course. Eight commonly used clinical scores in chronic liver disease were calculated. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) III and chronic liver failure consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF scores were significantly superior to other models in predicting overall mortality as determined by time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (area under the ROC curve (AUROC): 0.817). Subgroup analysis of patients with chronic hepatitis B-related cirrhosis displayed similar results. CLIF-C organ function (OF), CLIF-C ACLF, and APACHE III scores were statistically superior to the mortality probability model III at zero hours (MPM0-III) and the simplified acute physiology (SAP) III scores in predicting 28-day mortality. In conclusion, for 28-day and overall mortality prediction of patients with ACLF admitted to the ICU, APACHE III, CLIF-OF, and CLIF-C ACLF scores might outperform other models. Further prospective study is warranted.

Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure: The Role of Prognostic Scores in a Single-Center Experience

Background

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with multi-organ failure and high short-term mortality. We evaluated the role of currently available prognostic scores for prediction of 90-day mortality in ACLF patients.

Material/Methods

Fifty-five (M/F=40/15, mean age 60.0±11.1years) consecutive cirrhotic patients with severe liver insufficiency (mean MELD 28.4±9.0, Child-Pugh score – C-12) were enrolled into the study. MELD variants and SOFA, CLIF-SOFA, and CLIF-C scores were calculated, mortality predicting factors were identified, and clinical comparisons between ACLF and AD patients were performed.

Results

In total, 30 (55%) patients were transplanted (22 ACLF and 8 AD), and 20 (30%) died (19 ACLF and 1 AD). Five (9%) patients survived without liver transplantation (LT) (3 ACLF and 2 AD), and 3 transplant recipients died within 1 month. SOFA, CLIF-SOFA, CLIF-C OF, and INR were significantly associated with the incidence of 90-day mortality in competing risk regression analysis (all p<0.001). The model based on SOFA had the lowest BIC, with the optimal cut-off for 90-day mortality prediction ≥12, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.901 (95% CI 0.779–1.000; p<0.001), and corresponding incidence of transplantation rates of 85.5% and 11.8%, respectively (p<0.001). Of note, the important role of 24-h urine output is emphasized.

Conclusions

In this series of ACLF patients, SOFA score outperformed the CLIF-C scores in predicting 90-day mortality. Multi-organ failure scores performed better in predicting patient mortality than conventional liver function assessment. LT is possible and remains effective in selected ACLF patients.

Integrated model for end-stage liver disease maybe superior to some other model for end-stage liver disease-based systems in addition to Child-Turcotte-Pugh and albumin-bilirubin scores in patients with hepatitis B virus-related liver cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

OBJECTIVES

For mortality prediction of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in patients with cirrhosis, no direct comparisons have been made among the eight models, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), MELD-Na, integrated MELD (iMELD) score, MELD to sodium (MESO) index, modification of the MELD scoring system (Refit MELD), Refit MELD-Na and Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) score.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and July 2017, 314 patients who met the criteria for liver cirrhosis with the first episode of SBP were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at diagnosis. Patients were followed up until February 2018 or death.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly middle-aged male. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection accounted for the majority of the etiologies (41.7%) with 33.6% of the patients received antivirals. The in-hospital mortality rate was 39.8%. The cumulative 3-month and 6-month mortality rates were 51.6 and 60.2%, respectively. For patients with HBV related, not hepatitis C virus or alcohol related, liver cirrhosis, iMELD had the highest area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and was significantly superior to MELD, MESO, and Refit MELD in addition to CTP and ALBI scores in predicting 3-month and 6-month mortality.

CONCLUSION

For patients with HBV-related liver cirrhosis and SBP, iMELD had the highest AUC among these eight models and was significantly superior to MELD, MESO, and Refit MELD in addition to CTP and ALBI scores in predicting 3-month and 6-month mortalities.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Overview and pragmatic proposals

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration of liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures is controversial. While transplantation has been shown to be beneficial on an individual basis, the potentially poorer post-transplant outcome of these patients taken as a group can be held as an argument against allocating livers to them. Although this issue concerns only a minority of liver transplants, it calls into question the very heart of the allocation paradigms in place. Indeed, most allocation algorithms have been centered on prioritizing the sickest patients by using the model for end-stage liver disease score. This has led to allocating increasing numbers of livers to increasingly critically ill patients without setting objective or consensual limits on how sick patients can be when they receive an organ. Today, finding robust criteria to deem certain cirrhotic patients too sick to be transplanted seems urgent in order to ensure the fairness of our organ allocation protocols. This review starts by fleshing out the argument that finding such criteria is essential. It examines five types of difficulties that have hindered the progress of recent literature on this issue and identifies various strategies that could be followed to move forward on this topic, taking into account the recent discussion on acute on chronic liver failure. We move on to review the literature along four axes that could guide clinicians in their decision-making process regarding transplantation of critically ill cirrhotic patients.

Recovery of severe acute liver failure without transplantation in patients with Wilson disease

Wilson disease (WD) is a disorder of copper metabolism that leads to liver cirrhosis. WD patients with a NWIS > 11 should receive LT; however, we encountered 2 WD patients with an NWIS > 11 who recovered from ALF without LT. The present report aimed to analyze cases of WD patients with a high NWIS who recovered from severe ALF and to discuss the clinical manifestations of the patients and the effects of treatments, including zinc (Zn) therapy, chelator therapy, PE, CHDF, and LT. We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of five patients (male, 2; female, 3) diagnosed with WD along with severe ALF. In cases 1, 2, and 3, complete recovery from ALF was noted without LT. In case 4, initial recovery from ALF was noted without LT; however, ALF worsened owing to bleeding from the esophageal varix. Thus, the patient eventually needed LT. In case 5, recovery from ALF was noted with LT. All cases, except case 2, showed ALF with maximum PELD/MELD scores ≥26 and NWISs ≥ 11, and had indications for LT. In cases of severe ALF with grade I or II encephalopathy, we recommend evaluations of the effects of Zn and chelator treatments while preparing for LT, as the condition may not improve without LT, and pediatricians or physicians can ask transplant surgeons to perform LT urgently if required.

Accuracy of the Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease Score in Estimating Pretransplant Mortality Among Pediatric Liver Transplant Candidates

IMPORTANCE

Fair allocation of livers between pediatric and adult recipients is critically dependent on the accuracy of mortality estimates afforded by the Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-stage Liver Disease, respectively. Widespread reliance on exceptions for pediatric recipients suggests that the 2 systems may not be comparable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of the PELD score in estimating 90-day pretransplant mortality among pediatric patients on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients who were listed from February 27, 2002, to March 31, 2014, for primary liver transplant were included in this retrospective analysis and were followed up for at least 2 years through June 17, 2016. The study analyzed 2 cohorts using the UNOS Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data files. The full cohort comprised 4298 patients (<18 years of age) who had chronic liver disease (excluding cancer). The reduced cohort (n = 2421) excluded patients receiving living donor transplantation or PELD exception points.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Observed and expected 90-day pretransplant mortality rates evaluated at 10-point interval PELD levels.

RESULTS

Among the 4298 patients in the full cohort (mean [SD] age, 2.5 [4.2] years; 2251 [52.4%] female; 2201 [51.2%] white), PELD scores and mortality were concordant (C statistic, 0.8387 [95% CI, 0.8191-0.8584] for the full cohort and 0.8123 [95% CI, 0.7919-0.8327] for the reduced cohort). However, the estimated 90-day mortality using the PELD score underestimated the actual probability of death by as much as 17%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

With use of the PELD score, the ranking of risk among children was preserved, but direct comparisons between adult and pediatric candidates were not accurate. Children with chronic liver disease who are in need of transplant may be at a disadvantage compared with adults in a similar situation.

Stratifying Mortality in a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Waiting List: A Brazilian Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) system reliably predicts mortality in cirrhotic patients. However, the etiology of liver disease and presence of portal vein thrombosis are not directly taken into account in MELD score. Its impact on the outcomes of patients on the waiting list is still unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate mortality and access to transplantation regarding etiology of liver disease and portal vein thrombosis (PVT).

METHODS

A total of 465 adult patients on the liver waiting list from August 2015 to August 2016 were followed up until August 2017. Patients were divided into groups according to the etiology of liver disease and presence of PVT.

RESULTS

The most frequent etiologies were hepatitis C (26.88%), alcoholic cirrhosis (26.02%) and cryptogenic cirrhosis (10.75%). Death while on the waiting list occurred in 168 patients (36.1%) and was more frequent in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH, 65.4%) and alcoholic cirrhosis (41.3%). A total of 142 (30.5%) patients underwent transplantation and viral, autoimmune, and biliary diseases showed higher proportion of transplantation (36.3%, 53.8%, and 34%, respectively; P < .01). Mean delta-MELD at the study endpoint was higher in patients with autoimmune hepatitis, biliary diseases, and NASH (8.3 ± 7.2, 8.3 ± 9.1, and 7.5 ± 9.1, respectively; P < .01). A total 77 patients (16.7%) presented PVT. There was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with and without PVT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NASH and alcoholic liver disease had higher mortality while on the waiting list, whereas patients with viral and autoimmune hepatitis had higher transplantation rate. Outcomes were not influenced by PVT.

Comparison of twelve liver functional reserve models for outcome prediction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing surgical resection

Various noninvasive liver functional reserve models have been proposed, but their prognostic ability in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear. We aimed to investigate the performance of twelve noninvasive liver reserve models in HCC patients undergoing surgical resection. A total of 645 patients undergoing resection were prospectively identified and retrospectively analyzed. Tumor recurrence, overall survival, and independent prognostic factors were evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model. Of the twelve models, the King’s score showed the highest homogeneity and lowest corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) value, suggesting a better predictive ability for tumor recurrence. In multivariate Cox analysis, we confirmed that King’s score, tumor size and serum alpha-fetoprotein level were independent predictors associated with recurrence. In survival prediction, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) revealed the highest homogeneity and lowest value among twelve invasive models, indicating a better prognostic performance. In the Cox model, ALBI grade, tumor burden, alpha-fetoprotein, vascular invasion, diabetes mellitus and performance status were independent predictors linked with overall survival. In summary, the currently used liver function models have differential predictive ability for HCC patients undergoing surgical resection. The King’s score is a feasible tool to predict tumor recurrence, whereas ALBI grade is a more robust model for prognostic prediction.

Benefit in liver transplantation: a survey among medical staff, patients, medical students and non-medical university staff and students

Background

The allocation of any scarce health care resource, especially a lifesaving resource, can create profound ethical and legal challenges. Liver transplant allocation currently is based upon urgency, a sickest-first approach, and does not utilize capacity to benefit. While urgency can be described reasonably well with the MELD system, benefit encompasses multiple dimensions of patients’ well-being. Currently, the balance between both principles is ill-defined.

Methods

This survey with 502 participants examines how urgency and benefit are weighted by different stakeholders (medical staff, patients on the liver transplant list or already transplanted, medical students and non-medical university staff and students).

Results

Liver transplant patients favored the sickest-first allocation, although all other groups tended to favor benefit. Criteria of a successful transplantation were a minimum survival of at least 1 year and recovery of functional status to being ambulatory and capable of all self-care (ECOG 2). An individual delisting decision was accepted when the 1-year survival probability would fall below 50%. Benefit was found to be a critical variable that may also trigger the willingness to donate organs.

Conclusions

The strong interest of stakeholder for successful liver transplants is inadequately translated into current allocation rules.

Is Elective Status a Predictor of Poor Survival in Liver Retransplantation?

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (reLT) is considered to have poorer outcomes than primary transplantation. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of medical urgency status as a predictor of patient survival after reLT.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients who underwent reLT were included in this retrospective study. Urgent or elective status was based on the judgment of the surgical team, selected variables, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with patient survival following reLT.

RESULTS

Overall survival of the patient cohort was 57% at 1 year and 54.3% at 3 years after reTL. Survival in urgent-status patients was 68.8% and 63.4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, whereas the survival rate for elective patients was 40.0% at both time points. Mortality was significantly associated with elective status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.42; P = .046) at 1 year, but was no longer significant (HR, 2.19; P < .069) after 3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective status is associated with poorer outcome. Patient selection determines long-term survival more than any other single factor, so for patients designated to an elective status, prompt retransplantation should be encouraged.

New concepts in acute-on-chronic liver failure: Implications for liver transplantation

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a recently defined syndrome that occurs frequently in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. Currently, management of patients with ACLF is mainly supportive. Despite medical progress, this syndrome frequently leads to multiorgan failure, sepsis, and, ultimately, death. The results of attempts to use liver transplantation (LT) to manage this critical condition have been poorly reported but are promising. Currently, selection criteria of ACLF patients for LT, instructions for prioritization on the waiting list, and objective indicators for removal of ACLF patients from the waiting list in cases of clinical deterioration are poorly defined. Before potential changes can be implemented into decisional algorithms, their effects, either on the benefits to individual patients or on global transplant outcomes, should be carefully evaluated using objective longterm endpoints that take into account ethical considerations concerning LT. Liver Transplantation 23 234-243 2017 AASLD.

Predictive factors for survival and score application in liver retransplantation for hepatitis C recurrence

AIM: To identify risk factors associated with survival in patients retransplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and to apply a survival score to this population.

METHODS: We retrospectively identified 108 patients retransplanted for HCV recurrence in eight European liver transplantation centers (seven in France, one in Spain). Data collection comprised clinical and laboratory variables, including virological and antiviral treatment data. We then analyzed the factors associated with survival in this population. A recently published score that predicts survival in retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C was applied. Because there are currently no uniform recommendations regarding selection of the best candidates for retransplantation in this setting, we also described the clinical characteristics of 164 patients not retransplanted, with F3, F4, or fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) post-first graft presenting with hepatic decompensation.

RESULTS: Overall retransplantation patient survival rates were 55%, 47%, and 43% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients who were retransplanted for advanced cirrhosis had survival rates of 59%, 52%, and 49% at 3, 5, and 10 years, while those retransplanted for FCH had survival rates of 34%, 29%, and 11%, respectively. Under multivariate analysis, and adjusting for the center effect and the occurrence of FCH, factors associated with better survival after retransplantation were: negative HCV viremia before retransplantation, antiviral therapy after retransplantation, non-genotype 1, a Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 25 when replaced on the waiting list, and a retransplantation donor age < 60 years. Although the numbers were small, in the context of the new antivirals era, we showed that outcomes in patients who underwent retransplantation with undetectable HCV viremia did not depend on donor age and MELD score. The Andrés score was applied to 102 patients for whom all score variables were available, producing a mean score of 43.4 (SD = 6.6). Survival rates after the date of the first decompensation post-first liver transplantation (LT1) in the liver retransplantation (reLT) group (94 patients decompensated) at 3, 5, and 10 years were 62%, 59%, and 51%, respectively, among 78 retransplanted individuals with advanced cirrhosis, and 42%, 32%, and 16% among 16 retransplanted individuals with FCH. In the non-reLT group with hepatic decompensation, survival rates were 27%, 18%, and 9% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively (P < 0.0001). Compared with non-retransplanted patients, retransplanted patients were younger at LT1 (mean age 48 ± 8 years compared to 53 ± 9 years in the no reLT group, P < 0.0001), less likely to have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection (4% vs 14% among no reLT patients, P = 0.005), more likely to have received corticosteroid bolus therapy after LT1 (25% in reLT vs 12% in the no reLT group, P = 0.01), and more likely to have presented with sustained virological response (SVR) after the first transplantation (20% in the reLT group vs 7% in the no reLT group, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION: Antiviral therapy before and after retransplantation had a substantial impact on survival in the context of retransplantation for HCV recurrence, and with the new direct-acting antivirals now available, outcomes should be even better in the future.

Validation of the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease for Liver Transplant Allocation in Alberta: Implications for Future Directions in Canada

Background. Since 2002, the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been used for allocation of liver transplants (LT) in the USA. In Canada, livers were allocated by the CanWAIT algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare the abilities of MELD, Child-Pugh (CP), and CanWAIT status to predict 3-month and 1-year mortality before LT in Canadian patients and to describe the use of MELD in Canada. Methods. Validation of MELD was performed in 320 patients listed for LT in Alberta (1998-2002). In October 2014, a survey of MELD use by Canadian LT centers was conducted. Results. Within 1 year of listing, 47 patients were removed from the waiting list (29 deaths, 18 too ill for LT). Using logistic regression, the MELD and CP were better than the CanWAIT at predicting 3-month (AUROC: 0.79, 0.78, and 0.59; p = 0.0002) and 1-year waitlist mortality (AUROC: 0.70, 0.70, and 0.55; p = 0.0023). Beginning in 2004, MELD began to be adopted by Canadian LT programs but its use was not standardized. Conclusions. Compared with the CanWAIT system, the MELD score was significantly better at predicting LT waitlist mortality. MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) has now been adopted for LT allocation in Canada.

Therapeutic management of alcoholic hepatitis

Several investigators have given priority to treatment of AH, as this entity is associated with significant early mortality. Patients at significant risk of early death are identified by the use of prognostic models. The Lille model highlights the benefits obtained from strategy integrating the impact of treatment upon the evaluated endpoint. Survival impact of corticosteroids is significant in complete and partial responders, whereas it appeared negligible in null-responders. Infection screening is warranted, but should not contraindicate steroids. In terms of mechanisms, non-response to steroids is the key factor in development of infection and prediction of survival. For patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis failing to medical therapy can be identified earlier and have a 6-month survival around 30%; early liver transplantation in those patients is attractive but highly controversial as it challenges the 6-month abstinence rule prior to LT.

Model for end-stage liver disease score and MELD exceptions: 15 years later

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has been used as an objective scale of disease severity for management of patients with end-stage liver disease; it currently serves as the basis of an urgency-based organ-allocation policy in several countries. Implementation of the MELD score led to a reduction in waiting-list registration and waiting-list mortality and an increase in the number of deceased-donor transplants without adversely affecting long-term outcomes after liver transplantation (LT). The MELD score has been used for management of non-transplant patients with chronic liver disease. MELD exceptions serve as a mechanism to advance the needs of subsets of patients with liver disease not adequately addressed by MELD-based organ allocation. Several models have been proposed to refine and improve the MELD score as the environment within which it operates continues to evolve toward transplantation for sicker patients. The MELD score continues to serve and be used as a template to improve upon as an objective gauge of disease severity and as a metric enabling optimization of allocation of scarce donor organs for LT.

Donor organ distribution according to urgency of need or outcome maximization in liver transplantation. A questionnaire survey among patients and medical staff

Low donor rates in Germany cause a trade-off between equity in the distribution of chances for survival and efficiency in dead-donor liver transplantation. Public attitudes concerning the principles that should govern organ allocation are of interest. We performed a questionnaire-based study among patients and medical staff. 1826 of 2200 questionnaires were returned. 79.2%, 67.1%, and 24.4% patients wanted to accept liver transplantation for themselves if expected 1-year survival was 80%, 50%, and 20%, respectively. 57.7% affirmed 'averting immediate risk of death (urgency) is a more important criterion for organ allocation than expected long-term success' (P = 0.002 against indifference). The majority of medical staff took the opposite decision. 20.7%, 8.8%, and 21.2% of patients chose 50%, 33%, and 10% as lowest acceptable 5-year survival, respectively. 49.3% accepted a survival of <10%. Variables associated with preferring urgency over efficiency as criterion for allocation were age (OR 1.009; 95% CI: 1.000-1.017; female gender (OR 1.331; 95%CI 0.992-1.784); higher education (OR 0.881; 95%CI 0.801-0.969); and refusal of transplantation for oneself (OR 1.719; 95%CI 1.272-2.324). Most patients supported urgency-based liver allocation. Patients and medical staff would accept lower survival rates than the transplant community.

A new prognostic model to predict dropout from the waiting list in cirrhotic candidates for liver transplantation with MELD score <18

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) is used for organ allocation in liver transplantation (LT), but its prognostic performance is less accurate in patients with low score. We assess the outcome of patients with MELD < 18 awaiting LT, finding prognostic variables to identify a high dropout risk.

METHODS

Training set consisted of 277 patients and validation cohort of 292 patients. Competing risk regression analysis, taking into account LT, was used for univariate/multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Ascites, sodium, bilirubin, albumin and glomerular filtration rate were independently associated with a 12-month dropout risk in the training set. Combining these five prognostic parameters, we calculated a new score named liver-renal-risk (LIRER). In the validation set, the 12-month LIRER concordance index showed a discrimination power [0.798, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.793-0.803] better than MELD (0.582, 95% CI 0.575-0.588), Child-Turcotte-Pugh (0.687, 95% CI 0.681-0.693), MELD-sodium (0.721, 95% CI 0.715-0.727) and MELD-ascites-sodium (0.729, 95% CI 0.724-0.735), with a remarkable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P = 0.91; R(2) = 0.911). Considering all study patients, the risk of wait list dropout increased with the rise in LIRER. The survival benefit analysis comparing the wait list dropout risk with the mortality of the 216 transplanted patients with same LIRER showed an important benefit for LT in patients with LIRER > 15.9.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low MELD (<18), combination of ascites, sodium, albumin, bilirubin and renal function in a new score (LIRER) discriminates patients at high risk of medium-term adverse outcome from those in whom LT may be safely deferred.

Stage of cirrhosis predicts the risk of liver-related death in patients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores and cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has reduced predictive ability in patients with cirrhosis and MELD scores ≤ 20. We aimed to assess whether a 5-stage clinical model could identify liver transplantation (LT) candidates with low MELD scores who are at increased risk for death. We conducted a case-control study of subjects with cirrhosis and MELD scores ≤ 20 who were awaiting LT at a single academic medical center between February 2002 and May 2011. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk of liver-related death according to the cirrhosis stage. We identified 41 case subjects who died from liver-related causes with MELD scores ≤ 20 within 90 days of death while they were waiting for LT. The cases were matched with up to 3 controls (66 controls in all) on the basis of the listing year, age, sex, liver disease etiology, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, and MELD score. The cirrhosis stage was assessed for all subjects: (1) no varices or ascites, (2) varices, (3) variceal bleeding, (4) ascites, and (5) ascites and variceal bleeding. The MELD scores were similar for cases and controls. Clinical states contributing to death in cases were: sepsis 49%, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis 15%, variceal bleeding 24%, and hepatorenal syndrome 22%. In a univariate analysis, variceal bleeding [odds ratio (OR) = 5.6, P = 0.003], albumin (OR = 0.5, P = 0.041), an increasing cirrhosis stage (P = 0.003), reaching cirrhosis stage 2, 3, or 4 versus lower stages (OR = 3.6, P = 0.048; OR = 7.4, P < 0.001; and OR = 4.1, P = 0.008), a sodium level < 135 mmol/L (OR = 3.4, P = 0.006), and hepatic encephalopathy (OR = 2.3, P = 0.082) were associated with liver-related death. In a multivariate model including the cirrhosis stage, albumin, sodium, and hepatic encephalopathy, an increasing cirrhosis stage (P = 0.010) was independently associated with liver-related death. In conclusion, assessing the cirrhosis stage in patients with low MELD scores awaiting LT may help to select candidates for more aggressive monitoring or for living or extended criteria donation.

Hepatic retransplant: what have we learned?

Hepatic retransplant accounts for 5% to 15% of liver transplants in most series and is associated with significantly increased hospital costs and inferior patient survival when compared with primary liver transplant. Early retransplants are usually due to primary graft nonfunction or vascular thrombosis, whereas later retransplants are most commonly necessitated by chronic rejection or recurrent primary liver disease. Hepatic retransplant remains the sole option for survival in many patients facing allograft failure after liver transplant. With improved techniques to match retransplant candidates with appropriate donor grafts, it is hoped that the outcomes of retransplant will continue to improve in future.

A comparison of two validated scores for estimating risk of mortality of children with intestinal failure associated liver disease and those with liver disease awaiting transplantation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate risk of mortality in children with intestinal failure associated liver disease (IFALD) compared with other liver disease using two validated scores.

METHODS

Sixty-seven children listed for transplant were studied: cholestatic liver disease (CLDn23); liver disease secondary to other processes (LDsec n11); (IFALDn22), acute liver failure (ALFn11). Paediatric Hepatology Score (PHD) score and Pediatric end-stage liver disease score (PELD) were evaluated by Receiver Operating Curves (ROC), proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The highest PHD and PELD scores were found in ALF; the lowest in LDsec. Both scores correlated well in identifying waiting list (WL) mortality in patients with CLD and ALF, but not in those with IFALD where PELD scores were lower. Cox proportional hazard regression of time spent on the waiting list prior to death or transplant/delisting showed significant associations with PHD (P=0.006) and PELD (P=0.008). WL mortality was strongly predicted by disease group (6/8 deaths in IFALD). ROC analysis of all data showed that a PHD score greater than 15.5 had sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81% for waiting list mortality (P<0.001); PELD greater than 8 had a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 40%. Neither PHD nor PELD scores correlated with post-transplant mortality.

CONCLUSION

PHD and PELD scores had the same sensitivity for identifying risk of WL mortality in all patients, but PELD failed to identify the sickest children with IFALD, lowering its specificity. The PHD score has the added advantage for European centres of being in SI units, not requiring a computer application to calculate and was simpler to use at bedside.

Introducing an optimal liver allocation system for liver cirrhosis patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only treatment option for patients with advanced liver disease. Currently, liver donation to these patients, considering priorities, is based on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD). MELD score is a tool for predicting the risk of mortality in patients with advanced liver disease. However, few studies have so far been conducted in Iran on the efficacy of MELD score of these patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study reviews the present status of the MELD score and introduces a new model for optimal prediction of the risk of mortality in Iranian patients with advanced liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data required were collected from 305 patients with advanced liver disease who enrolled in a waiting list (WL) in Imam Khomeini Hospital from May 2008 to May 2009. All of the patients were followed up for at least 3 years until they died or underwent LT. Cox regression analysis was applied to select the factors affecting their mortality. Survival curves were plotted. Wilcoxson test and receiver operating characteristics curves for survival predictive model were used to compare the scores. All calculations were performed with the SPSS (version 13.0) and R softwares.

RESULTS

During the study, 71 (23.3%) patients died due to liver cirrhosis and 43 (14.1%) underwent LT. Viral Hepatitis (43.7%) is the most common cause of end-stage liver disease among Iranian patients. A new model (NMELD) was proposed with the use of the natural logarithms of two blood serum variables (total bilirubin and albumin) and the patients' age (year) by applying the Cox model: NMELD = 10 × (0.736 × ln (bilirubin) - 1.312 × ln (albumin) + 0.025 × age + 1.776).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the Wilcoxon test showed that there is a significant difference between the usual MELD and our proposed NMELD scores (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve for survival predictive model indicated that the NMELD score is more efficient compared with the MELD score in predicting the risk of mortality. Since serum creatinine was not significant in NMELD score, further studies to clarify this issue are suggested.

Addressing geographic disparities in liver transplantation through redistricting

Severe geographic disparities exist in liver transplantation; for patients with comparable disease severity, 90-day transplant rates range from 18% to 86% and death rates range from 14% to 82% across donation service areas (DSAs). Broader sharing has been proposed to resolve geographic inequity; however, we hypothesized that the efficacy of broader sharing depends on the geographic partitions used. To determine the potential impact of redistricting on geographic disparity in disease severity at transplantation, we combined existing DSAs into novel regions using mathematical redistricting optimization. Optimized maps and current maps were evaluated using the Liver Simulated Allocation Model. Primary analysis was based on 6700 deceased donors, 28 063 liver transplant candidates, and 242 727 Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) changes in 2010. Fully regional sharing within the current regional map would paradoxically worsen geographic disparity (variance in MELD at transplantation increases from 11.2 to 13.5, p = 0.021), although it would decrease waitlist deaths (from 1368 to 1329, p = 0.002). In contrast, regional sharing within an optimized map would significantly reduce geographic disparity (to 7.0, p = 0.002) while achieving a larger decrease in waitlist deaths (to 1307, p = 0.002). Redistricting optimization, but not broader sharing alone, would reduce geographic disparity in allocation of livers for transplant across the United States.

Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the North American experience

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in North America has undergone substantial change since its inception. Transplantation for large tumors led to near universal tumor recurrence and despite its theoretical benefit, complete liver replacement for primary hepatic malignancy was all but abandoned outside of clinical trials. With the publication of the Milan criteria interest was renewed and results of transplant for HCC began to mirror those for non-malignant indications. The adoption of MELD-based allocation led to a substantial increase in the number of transplants for HCC as MELD priority points were given to patients who met the restrictive criteria. As results of transplantation improved, several groups have pushed the boundaries of Milan and found similar results. To further possibility of transplantation for patients with tumors outside of criteria, locoregional therapies have been utilized to downstage these tumors. As the number of patients awaiting a deceased donor allograft continues to increase while the number of available deceased donor organs remains relatively constant, the roles of living donor transplantation, adjuvant, and neoadjuvant therapy will continue to evolve.

Liver transplantation outcome in patients with angiographically proven coronary artery disease: a multi-institutional study

Over the last decade the age of liver transplant (LT) recipients and the likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) in this population have increased. There are no multicenter studies that have examined the impact of CAD on LT outcomes. In this historical cohort study, we identified adult LT recipients who underwent angiography prior to transplantation at seven institutions over a 12-year period. For each patient we recorded demographic data, recipient and donor risk factors, duration of follow-up, the presence of angiographically proven obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) and post-LT survival. Obstructive CAD was present in 151 of 630 patients, the CAD(+) group. Nonobstructive CAD was found in 479 patients, the CAD(-) group. Patient survival was similar for the CAD(+) group (adjusted HR 1.13, CI = [0.79, 1.62], p = 0.493) compared to the CAD(-) group. The CAD(+) patients were further stratified into severe (CADsev, >70% stenosis, n = 96), and moderate CAD (CADmod, 50-70% stenosis, n = 55) groups. Survival for the CADsev (adjusted HR = 1.26, CI = [0.83, 1.91], p = 0.277) and CADmod (adjusted HR = 0.93, CI = [0.52, 1.66], p = 0.797) groups were similar to the CAD(-) group. We conclude that when current CAD treatment strategies are employed prior to transplant, post-LT survival is not significantly different between patients with and without obstructive CAD.

Portal vein thrombosis, cirrhosis, and liver transplantation

Portal vein thrombosis is not uncommon in candidates for transplantation. Partial thrombosis is more common than complete thrombosis. Despite careful screening at evaluation, a number of patients are still found with previously unrecognized thrombosis per-operatively. The objective is to recanalize the portal vein or, if recanalization is not achievable, to prevent the extension of the thrombus so that a splanchnic vein can be used as the inflow vessel to restore physiological blood flow to the allograft. Anticoagulation during waiting time and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are two options to achieve these goals. TIPS may achieve recanalization in patients with complete portal vein thrombosis. However, a marked impairment in liver function, which is a characteristic feature of most candidates for transplantation, may be a contraindication for TIPS. Importantly, the MELD score is artificially increased by the administration of vitamin K antagonists due to prolonged INR. When patency of the portal vein and/or superior mesenteric vein is not achieved, only non-anatomical techniques (renoportal anastomosis or cavoportal hemitransposition) can be performed. These techniques, which do not fully reverse portal hypertension, are associated with higher morbidity and mortality risks. Multivisceral transplantation including the liver and small bowel needs to be evaluated. In the absence of prothrombotic states that may persist after transplantation, there is no evidence that pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis justifies long term anticoagulation post-transplantation, provided portal flow has been restored through conventional end-to-end portal anastomosis.

Is the patient a candidate for liver transplantation?

Identifying whether someone is a good candidate for liver transplantation is a complex process that requires a team approach. There are several medical and psychosocial considerations involved, each of which is thoroughly explored during the evaluation process. Both the indications and contraindications to transplantation can change over time, reflecting advances in understanding of, and ability to treat, certain disease processes. Ultimately, the goal of liver transplantation remains to provide a survival benefit to those with acute or chronic liver diseases.

Implications of changing the minimal survival benefit in liver transplantation

The limited availability of livers donated by deceased donors for transplantation means that not everyone who might benefit from the procedure can receive a graft, so any selection and allocation system must have clearly defined goals. The United Kingdom, in common with many other countries, has adopted a minimum benefit criterion of a greater than 50% probability of survival 5 years after transplantation. We investigated the impact of changing this minimum benefit criterion on a case mix of listed patients. The analysis was based on 5330 adult elective patients who underwent transplantation with livers from donation after brain death donors between January 1994 and December 2007. We examined the impact of balancing the number of registrations on the list with the number of available donor livers while allowing a 10% mortality rate and found that this would require a survival threshold of at least 74% at 5 years. According to historical data, the application of this more stringent criterion would significantly reduce the eligibility of older and nonwhite patients and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C virus infections. Thus, if such undesirable restrictions on access to liver transplantation are to be avoided, we must consider alternative strategies such as the acceptance of higher transplant list mortality.

Early liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND

A 6-month abstinence from alcohol is usually required before patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis are considered for liver transplantation. Patients whose hepatitis is not responding to medical therapy have a 6-month survival rate of approximately 30%. Since most alcoholic hepatitis deaths occur within 2 months, early liver transplantation is attractive but controversial.

METHODS

We selected patients from seven centers for early liver transplantation. The patients had no prior episodes of alcoholic hepatitis and had scores of 0.45 or higher according to the Lille model (which calculates scores ranging from 0 to 1, with a score ≥ 0.45 indicating nonresponse to medical therapy and an increased risk of death in the absence of transplantation) or rapid worsening of liver function despite medical therapy. Selected patients also had supportive family members, no severe coexisting conditions, and a commitment to alcohol abstinence. Survival was compared between patients who underwent early liver transplantation and matched patients who did not.

RESULTS

In all, 26 patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis at high risk of death (median Lille score, 0.88) were selected and placed on the list for a liver transplant within a median of 13 days after nonresponse to medical therapy. Fewer than 2% of patients admitted for an episode of severe alcoholic hepatitis were selected. The centers used 2.9% of available grafts for this indication. The cumulative 6-month survival rate (±SE) was higher among patients who received early transplantation than among those who did not (77 ± 8% vs. 23 ± 8%, P<0.001). This benefit of early transplantation was maintained through 2 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 6.08; P = 0.004). Three patients resumed drinking alcohol: one at 720 days, one at 740 days, and one at 1140 days after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Early liver transplantation can improve survival in patients with a first episode of severe alcoholic hepatitis not responding to medical therapy. (Funded by Société Nationale Française de Gastroentérologie.).

Model for end-stage liver disease: end of the first decade

The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is the basis for allocation of liver allografts for transplantation in the United States. The MELD score, as an objective scale of disease severity, is also used in the management of patients with chronic liver disease in the nontransplant setting. Several models have been proposed to improve the MELD score. The authors believe that the MELD score is, by design, continually evolving and lends itself to continued refinement and improvement to serve as a metric to optimize organ allocation in the future.

Liver transplantation for patients with alcoholic liver disease: an open question

End-stage alcoholic liver disease is a recognised indication for liver transplantation but some questions on the matter remain open. It is difficult to quantify alcohol consumption, and a single definition of post-transplant relapse is lacking. Moreover, there are no internationally accepted criteria for the selection of candidates for liver transplantation and the eligibility parameters for these patients are controversial. Additional clinical and psychological evaluations are necessary in this setting, especially to establish the risk of alcohol relapse. Nevertheless, patient and graft survival rates after liver transplantation in alcoholic liver disease are comparable to those after transplant for other aetiologies, alcohol consumption relapse being one of the most important problems in the post-transplant phase. In conclusion, alcohol-related liver disease is a good indication for liver transplantation. The main future goals are to formulate a well-defined pre-transplant approach and a single definition of alcohol relapse and to improve prevention strategies.

Regional variability in symptom-based MELD exceptions: a response to organ shortage?

MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) exception awards affect the liver allocation process. Award rates of specific nonhepatocellular carcinoma exceptions, termed symptom-based exceptions (SBE), differ across UNOS regions. We aimed to characterize the regional variability in SBE awards and examine predictive factors for receiving a SBE in the MELD era. The OPTN liver transplant and waiting list dataset was analyzed for waiting list registrants during the MELD allocation on February 27, 2002, until November 22, 2006. Competing risks proportional hazards regression analysis was used to examine predictors for receiving a SBE in 39 169 registrants. The hazard ratios for receiving a SBE differed significantly across regions when adjusted for multiple variables including age, gender, ethnicity, physiologic MELD score, blood group, functional status, etiology of liver disease, insurer and education level. Utilization of SBE is highly significantly variable across UNOS regions, and does not correlate with organ availability as estimated by the regional mean physiologic MELD score at transplantation. Patients with Medicaid as their primary payer have a lower likelihood of receiving a SBE award, while patients with cryptogenic/NASH cirrhosis or cholestatic liver disease have a higher likelihood of receiving a SBE. Reasons for these regional and demographic disparities deserve further investigation.

Predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality by model for endstage liver disease score for patients with head and neck cancer and liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system for predicting the morbidity and mortality of patients with head and neck cancer with liver cirrhosis undergoing tumor resection with microsurgical free-tissue transfer.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2008, 3108 cases were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 59 men and 2 women enrolled in this study. Preoperatively, 31 and 30 patients were classified as having lower (<9.73) and higher (>9.73) MELD scores, respectively. Patients with higher MELD scores had significantly more postoperative medical morbidities including pulmonary complications and gastrointestinal bleeding. The mortality rate was also significantly higher for higher MELD scorers (23.3% vs 3.2%; p = 0.026). By logistic regression model, preoperative MELD score was a significant predictive factor for morbidity and mortality in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

MELD score could be used to predict morbidity and mortality for patients with head and neck cancer with liver cirrhosis undergoing tumor resection with microsurgical free tissue transfer.

The effect of changes of model for end-stage liver disease score during waiting time on post-liver transplant mortality

OBJECTIVE

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is found to be a robust predictor of mortality while on waiting list for liver transplantation. However, studies have shown inconsistent results for transplant MELD as a predictor of posttransplant mortality.

AIM

To find whether utilization of MELD at listing, at transplant, or Δ MELD while waiting can predict outcome at a national transplant center, which is not part of an organ sharing network.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of patients listed for liver transplantation at the New Zealand Liver Transplant Unit (NZLTU) with calculation of MELD score at the time of listing and at transplant with/without adjustment points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2005, 264 adult patients were listed for liver transplantation. Median age at transplant was 49 years (range 16-70) and 65% were male. The most common etiology was viral hepatitis (50%). A total of 48 patients (20%) had known HCC. MELD scores (adjusted and nonadjusted) at listing and at transplantation were similar across all primary liver diseases (P = 0.88, 0.93, respectively). Adjusted MELD scores were significantly higher in patients listed for HCC compared to those without HCC (P < 0.001; hazard ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval = 1.21-1.46). MELD scores at transplant did not correlate with either 3 or 12 months mortality (P = 0.336, 0.228, respectively). This finding was consistent whether the change of MELD during waiting time was >1 point or less (P = 0.67). Waiting time does not appear to influence posttransplant survival (P = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

In a country with a single transplant center and organ retrieval organization, the addition of MELD score to current minimal listing criteria does not improve prioritization of patients on the waiting list or predict posttransplant survival. Also, adjusting MELD score for HCC would unfairly disadvantage patients listed without HCC.

Impact of the MELD allocation after its implementation in liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

On 16 December 2006, most Eurotransplant countries changed waiting time oriented liver allocation policy to the urgency oriented Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) system. There are limited data on the effects of this policy change within the Eurotransplant community.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 154 patients who had undergone deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) were retrospectively analyzed in three time periods: period A (1-year pre-MELD, n = 42) versus period B (1-year post-MELD, n = 52) versus period C (2 years after MELD implementation, n = 60).

RESULTS

The median MELD score at the time of LT increased from 16.3 points in period A to 22.4 and 20.4 in periods B and C, respectively (p = 0.007). Waitlist mortality decreased from 18.4% in period A to 10.4% and 9.4% in periods B and C, respectively (p = 0.015). Three-month mortality did not change significantly (10% each for periods A, B and C). One-year survival was 84% for the MELD 6-19 group compared with 81% in the MELD 20-29 group and 74% in the MELD ≥30 group (p = 0.823). Analyzing MELD score and previously described prognostic scores [i.e. survival after liver transplantation (SALT) score and donor-MELD (D-MELD) score] with regard to 1-year survival, only a high risk SALT score was predictive (p = 0.038). In our center, 2 years after implementation of the MELD system, waitlist mortality decreased, while 90-day mortality did not change significantly.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, only the SALT score proved to be of prognostic relevance post-transplant.