Does MELD work for relisted candidates?

Recurrence of autoimmune liver diseases after liver transplantation: Review and expert opinion statement

Autoimmune liver diseases (AILDs) constitute the fourth most common indication for liver transplantation (LT) across the world. In general, the outcomes after LT are acceptable; however, disease recurrence after LT is common for all AILD, which can negatively affect graft and overall survival. Several questions persist, including the risk factors associated with recurrent disease, optimal antirejection medications, strategies to reduce the risk of recurrence, and how to best incorporate these strategies into clinical practice. For that reason, we assembled an international group of experts to review evidence to address these outstanding questions regarding LT for AILD. Survival rates after LT are ~90% and 70% at 1 and 5 years, and recurrent disease occurs in 10%-50% of patients with AILD. In patients with disease recurrence, graft survival decreased by 18% and 28% and overall survival by 8% and 12% at 5 and 10 years after LT, respectively. Recurrent autoimmune hepatitis is associated with high aminotransferases and immunoglobulin G (IgG) before LT, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates in the explants, and may be associated with the absence of steroids after LT. However, the efficiency and safety of triple immunosuppressive maintenance therapy is still debatable. Younger age at diagnosis with primary biliary cholangitis or LT is associated with primary biliary cholangitis recurrence. Preventive use of ursodeoxycholic acid reduces the risk of recurrence and has a benefit in graft and patient survival. Episodes of systemic inflammation, including T-cell-mediated rejection, active ulcerative colitis, and episodes of cholangitis, are associated with recurrent PSC. Recurrent disease for AILD is associated with worse graft and patient survival. Patients with autoimmune hepatitis could be considered for long-term low-dose predniso(lo)ne, whereas patients with primary biliary cholangitis should be placed on preventive ursodeoxycholic acid after LT. There are no specific treatments for PSC recurrence; however, adequate control of inflammatory bowel disease and optimal immunosuppression to avoid T-cell-mediated rejection should be encouraged.

Trajectories of patients relisted for liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recurrent cirrhosis complicates 10-30% of Liver transplants (LT) and can lead to consideration for re-transplantation. We evaluated the trajectories of relisted versus primary listed patients on the waitlist using a competing risk framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 1,912 patients listed for LT at our centre between from 2012 to 2020. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess overall survival (OS) by listing type and competing risk analysis Fine-Gray models were used to assess cumulative incidence of transplant by listing type.

RESULTS

1,731 patients were included (104 relisted). 44.2% of relisted patients received exception points vs. 19.8% of primary listed patients (p<0.001). Patients relisted without exceptions, representing those with graft cirrhosis, had the worst OS (HR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.63 - 6.67, p=<0.0001) and lowest instantaneous rate of transplant (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.38 - 0.83, p=0.006) than primary listed with exception points. On multivariate analysis listing type, height, bilirubin and INR were associated with cumulative incidence of transplant, while listing type, bilirubin, INR, sodium, creatinine were associated with OS. Within relisted patients, there was a trend towards higher mortality (HR: 1.79, 95%CI 0.91 - 3.52, p=0.08) and low transplant incidence (HR: 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 - 1.15, p=0.07) for graft cirrhosis vs other relisting indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients relisted for LT are carefully curated and comprise a minority of the waitlist population. Despite their younger age, they have worse liver/kidney function, poor waitlist survival, and decreased transplant incidence suggesting the need for early relisting, while considering standardized exception points.

Is It Justified to Use Liver Grafts From Living Donors for Retransplant? A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

Liver retransplant is considered the only hope for patients with irreversible graft failure after primary transplant. In most Western centers, retransplantis done mainly from deceased donors; so far, only few published studies have reported on outcomes of liver retransplant with living donors. In this study, our aim was to analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent liver retransplant between February 2011 and February 2019 were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Results from 2 patient groups were compared: liver retransplant with living donors and liver retransplant with deceased donors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent liver retransplant (21 adult and 11 pediatric patients). The most common indications for liver retransplant were hepatic artery thrombosis (28.5%) and primary graft nonfunction (23.8%) in adults and hepatic artery thrombosis (45.5%) and chronic rejection (36.4%) in pediatric patients. Seventeen retransplant patients (53.1%) required early retransplant (within 1 mo), mainly due to hepatic artery thrombosis (52.9%) and primary graft nonfunction (35.3%). Late retransplant was mainly due to chronic rejection (40%) and recurrence of primary disease (26.7%). Seventeen patients (53.1%) underwent living-donor retransplant, and 5 donors underwent robotic right hepatectomy. Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81.3% for living-donor and 51.4% for deceased-donor liver retransplant recipients (P = .08). On multivariate analyses, we observed significant differences between both groups in pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = .05), preoperative international normalized ratio (P = .012), and cold ischemia time (P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of living donors for liver retransplant, despite its technical demand, was shown to be a safe and feasible option, especially when there is scarcity of deceased donors.

VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society

The goal of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society (La Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático) is to promote and create consensus documents about current topics in liver transplantation with a multidisciplinary approach. To this end, on October 20, 2016, the 6th Consensus Document Meeting was held, with the participation of experts from the 24 authorized Spanish liver transplantation programs. This Edition discusses the following subjects, whose summary is offered below: 1) limits of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation; 2) limits of elective liver re-transplantation; and 3) liver transplantation after resection and hepatocellular carcinoma with factors for a poor prognosis. The consensus conclusions for each of these topics is provided below.

VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society

The goal of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society (La Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático) is to promote and create consensus documents about current topics in liver transplantation with a multidisciplinary approach. To this end, on October 20, 2016, the 6th Consensus Document Meeting was held, with the participation of experts from the 24 authorized Spanish liver transplantation programs. This Edition discusses the following subjects, whose summary is offered below: 1) limits of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation; 2) limits of elective liver re-transplantation; and 3) liver transplantation after resection and hepatocellular carcinoma with factors for a poor prognosis. The consensus conclusions for each of these topics is provided below.

Impact of comorbidity on waiting list and post-transplant outcomes in patients undergoing liver retransplantation

AIM

To determine the impact of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) on waiting list (WL) and post liver retransplantation (LRT) survival.

METHODS

Comparative study of all adult patients assessed for primary liver transplant (PLT) (n = 1090) and patients assessed for LRT (n = 150), 2000-2007 at our centre. Demographic, clinical and laboratory variables were recorded.

RESULTS

Median age for all patients was 53 years and 66% were men. Median model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15. Median follow-up was 7-years. For retransplant patients, 84 (56%) had ≥ 1 comorbidity. The most common comorbidity was renal impairment in 66 (44.3%). WL mortality was higher in patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (76% vs 53%, P = 0.044). CCI (OR = 2.688, 95%CI: 1.222-5.912, P = 0.014) was independently associated with WL mortality. Patients with MELD score ≥ 18 had inferior WL survival (Log-Rank 6.469, P = 0.011). On multivariate analysis, CCI (OR = 2.823, 95%CI: 1.563-5101, P = 0.001), MELD score ≥ 18 (OR 2.506, 95%CI: 1.044-6.018, P = 0.04), and requirement for organ support prior to LRT (P < 0.05) were associated with reduced post-LRT survival. Donor/graft parameters were not associated with survival (P = NS). Post-LRT mortality progressively increased according to the number of transplanted grafts (Log-Rank 18.455, P < 0.001). Post-LRT patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were significantly inferior to those of PLT at 88% vs 73%, P < 0.001, 81% vs 71%, P = 0.018 and 69% vs 55%, P = 0.006, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidity increases WL and post-LRT mortality. Patients with MELD ≥ 18 have increased WL mortality. Patients with comorbidity or MELD ≥ 18 may benefit from earlier LRT. LRT for ≥ 3 grafts may not represent appropriate use of donated grafts.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

Optimizing repeat liver transplant graft utility through strategic matching of donor and recipient characteristics

Repeat liver transplantation (LT) is controversial because of inferior outcomes versus primary LT. A minimum 1-year expected post-re-LT survival of 50% has been proposed. We aimed to identify combinations of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), donor risk index (DRI), and recipient characteristics achieving this graft survival threshold. We identified re-LT recipients listed in the United States from March 2002 to January 2010 with > 90 days between primary LT and listing for re-LT. Using Cox regression, we estimated the expected probability of 1-year graft survival and identified combinations of MELD, DRI, and recipient characteristics attaining >50% expected 1-year graft survival. Re-LT recipients (n = 1418) had a median MELD of 26 and median age of 52 years. Expected 1-year graft survival exceeded 50% regardless of MELD or DRI in Caucasian recipients who were not infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) of all ages and Caucasian HCV-infected recipients <50 years old. As age increased in HCV-infected Caucasian and non-HCV-infected African American recipients, lower MELD scores or lower DRI grafts were needed to attain the graft survival threshold. As MELD scores increased in HCV-infected African American recipients, lower-DRI livers were required to achieve the graft survival threshold. Use of high-DRI livers (>1.44) in HCV-infected recipients with a MELD score > 26 at re-LT failed to achieve the graft survival threshold with recipient age ≥ 60 years (any race), as well as at age ≥ 50 years for Caucasians and at age < 50 years for African Americans. Strategic donor selection can achieve >50% expected 1-year graft survival even in high-risk re-LT recipients (HCV infected, older age, African American race, high MELD scores). Low-risk transplant recipients (age < 50 years, non-HCV-infected) can achieve the survival threshold with varying DRI and MELD scores.

Early markers of reperfusion injury after liver transplantation: association with primary dysfunction

BACKGROUND

In patients with end-stage liver disease, liver transplantation is the only available curative treatment. Although the outcome and quality of life in the patients have improved over the past decades, primary dys- or nonfunction (PDF/PNF) can occur. Early detection of PDF and PNF is crucial and could lead to individual therapies. This study was designed to identify early markers of reperfusion injury and PDF in liver biopsies taken during the first hour after reperfusion.

METHODS

Biopsies from donor livers were prospectively taken as a routine during the first hour after reperfusion. Recipient data, transaminases and outcome were routinely monitored. In total, 10 biopsy specimens taken from patients with 90-day mortality and PDF, and patients with long-term survival but without PDF were used for DNA microarrays. Markers that were significantly up- or down-regulated in the microarray were verified using quantitative real-time PCR.

RESULTS

Age, indications and labMELD score were similar in both groups. Peak-transaminases during the first week after transplantation were significantly different in the two groups. In total, 20 differentially regulated markers that correlated to PDF were identified using microarray analysis and verified with quantitative real-time PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

The markers identified in this study could predict PDF at a very early time point and might point to interventions that ameliorate reperfusion injury and thus prevent PDF. Identification of patients and organs at risk might lead to individualized therapies and could ultimately improve outcome.

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.

Renal support during liver transplantation: when to consider it?

Patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation constitute a difficult-to-treat population. They often have multiorgan dysfunction: acute kidney injury, severe water-electrolyte and acid-base imbalances, systemic inflammatory responses, thrombocytopenia, as well as abnormalities of coagulation and fibrinolysis. All of these disorders may be further exacerbated by the surgical procedure, which is lengthy and technically complex, requiring massive blood product and other fluid infusions with a high risk to develop severe lactic acidosis, hyperkalemia, or cerebral edema. These considerations provide a rationale to institute intraoperative renal replacement therapy (ioRRT), at least for the most critically ill, namely, patients with kidney dysfunction, or those in whom one anticipates intraoperative clinical and technical problems. This article discusses the most common indications and strategies for ioRRT, examining their advantages and disadvantages as well as current experiences.

Prediction of postoperative mortality in liver transplantation in the era of MELD-based liver allocation: a multivariate analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. While waiting list mortality can be predicted by the MELD-score, reliable scoring systems for the postoperative period do not exist. This study's objective was to identify risk factors that contribute to postoperative mortality.

METHODS

Between December 2006 and March 2011, 429 patients underwent liver transplantation in our department. Risk factors for postoperative mortality in 266 consecutive liver transplantations were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients who were <18 years, HU-listings, and split-, living related, combined or re-transplantations were excluded from the analysis. The correlation between number of risk factors and mortality was analyzed.

RESULTS

A labMELD ≥20, female sex, coronary heart disease, donor risk index >1.5 and donor Na+>145 mmol/L were identified to be independent predictive factors for postoperative mortality. With increasing number of these risk-factors, postoperative 90-day and 1-year mortality increased (0-1: 0 and 0%; 2: 2.9 and 17.4%; 3: 5.6 and 16.8%; 4: 22.2 and 33.3%; 5-6: 60.9 and 66.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, a simple score was derived that adequately identified patients at risk after liver transplantation. Opening a discussion on the inclusion of these parameters in the process of organ allocation may be a worthwhile venture.

Impact of MELD on waitlist outcome of retransplant candidates

Under the current allocation system for liver transplantation (LTx), primary and retransplantation (ReTx) are treated identically. The aims of this study were (1) to compare the risk of death between ReTx and primary LTx candidates at a given MELD score and (2) to gauge the impact of the MELD-based allocation system on the waitlist outcome of ReTx candidates. Based on data of all waitlist registrants in the United States between 2000 and 2006, unique adult patients with chronic liver disease were identified and followed forward to determine mortality within six months of registration. There were a total of 45,943 patients waitlisted for primary LTx and 2081 registered for ReTx. In the MELD era (n = 30,175), MELD was significantly higher among ReTx candidates than primary LTx candidates (median, 21 vs. 15). Within a range of MELD scores where most transplantation took place, mortality was comparable between ReTx and primary candidates after adjusting for MELD. The probability for LTx increased significantly following implementation of the MELD-based allocation in both types of candidates. We conclude that by and large, primary and ReTx candidates fare equitably under the current MELD-based allocation system, which has contributed to a significant increase in the probability of LTx.

Liver retransplantation in adults: a single-centre, 25-year experience

BACKGROUND

Retransplantation is the only form of treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyse a single centre's experience of the indications for and outcomes of retransplantation.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients who underwent liver retransplantation using 225 grafts, between January 1982 and July 2007, were included in the study. The following parameters were analysed: patient demographics; primary diagnosis; distribution of retransplantation over different time periods; indications for retransplantation; time interval to retransplantation, and overall patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Of the 2437 primary orthotopic liver transplantations, 196 patients (8%) required a first regraft, 23 patients (1%) a second regraft and six patients (0.25%) a third regraft. Autoimmune hepatitis was the most common primary diagnosis for which retransplantation was required (12.7% of primary transplantations). The retransplantation rate declined from 12% at the beginning of our programme to 7.6% at the end of the study period. The most common indication for retransplantation was hepatic artery thrombosis (31.6%). Nearly two-thirds of the retransplantations were performed within 6 months of the primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates following first retransplantation were 66%, 61%, 57% and 47%, respectively. Five-year survival after second retransplantation was 40%. None of the patients have yet survived 3 years after a third regraft. Donor age of < or =55 years and a MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score of < or =23 were associated with better outcome following retransplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

First retransplantation was associated with good longterm survival. There was no survival benefit following second and third retransplantations. A MELD score of < or =23 and donor age of < or =55 years correlated with better outcome following retransplantation.

Correlation between selected prognostic factors and postoperative course in liver transplant recipients

AIM

The objective was to identify the major prognostic factors influencing liver function after transplantation that predict the postoperative course and long-term survival among liver transplant recipients. We analyzed the results of biochemical, microbiological, serologic, and pathologic studies of the donor and recipient, as well as intraoperative data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 542 liver transplant recipients, 215 (39.7%) were analyzed in the period from 1989 to 2006. Patients were divided according to the mechanism leading to the liver disease: group I, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (n = 80, 37.0%); group II, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (n = 33, 15.0%); group III, HBV and HCV infection (n = 13, 6.0%); group IV, alcoholic liver disease (ALD) (n = 66, 31.0%); and group V, autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (n = 23, 11.0%).

RESULTS

Prediction of patient survival based on clinical parameters showed a better prognostic value than that based only on liver function tests. Transplant urgency scores-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), delta MELD and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)-enabled us to predict early and long-term patient survival after liver transplantation. Update of these scores, reflecting the patient's condition, enabled us to evaluate pretransplant life-threatening factors and urgency level. Organ donation predictive factors were age, viral status, and degree of liver steatosis. Cold and warm ischemia times still were major prognostic factor. Routine biliary drainage resulted in worse long-term survival than non-drained patients. Liver transplantation for ALD showed the highest complication rate. Chronic liver rejection occurred more frequently in the AIH transplanted group. The most useful predictive factors for 1-year survival were urea/creatinine and liver function tests: aspartate and alanine aminotransferases, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase the International normalized ratio, and Quick.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis of patient outcomes after liver transplantation based on clinical parameters showed greater value than evaluation of the laboratory data.

Inequities of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease: an examination of current components and future additions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to examine the limitations of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) components and summarize data on promising new predictor variables.

RECENT FINDINGS

Promising modifications to MELD have been aimed at identifying more accurate measurements of the current MELD components and at improving survival prediction in earlier stages of cirrhosis. Incorporation of new measurements of cholestasis, coagulopathy and renal dysfunction should improve accuracy and reliability of MELD in predicting mortality in end stage liver disease. Direct bilirubin may be a more specific surrogate marker of liver disease than total bilirubin and further investigation of its use in liver mortality risk models in warranted. The recently developed liver-specific international normalized ratio may mitigate thromboplastin-related variation in international normalized ratio measurements. The incorporation of more accurate assessments of renal function into MELD should improve prognostic accuracy and would avert systematic biases associated with serum creatinine. Hepatic venous pressure gradient and serum sodium are promising predictors of liver-related mortality that may warrant further consideration.

SUMMARY

Modification to MELD, particularly if intended for use in liver transplant allocation, should be based upon objective, reliable, reproducible and readily available predictors; and be able to withstand rigorous model development and validation.

Repeat organ transplantation in the United States, 1996-2005

The prospect of graft loss is a problem faced by all transplant recipients, and retransplantation is often an option when loss occurs. To assess current trends in retransplantation, we analyzed data for retransplant candidates and recipients over the last 10 years, as well as current outcomes. During 2005, retransplant candidates represented 13.5%, 7.9%, 4.1% and 5.5% of all newly registered kidney, liver, heart and lung candidates, respectively. At the end of 2005, candidates for retransplantation accounted for 15.3% of kidney transplant candidates, and lower proportions of liver (5.1%), heart (5.3%) and lung (3.3%) candidates. Retransplants represented 12.4% of kidney, 9.0% of liver, 4.7% of heart and 5.3% of lung transplants performed in 2005. The absolute number of retransplants has grown most notably in kidney transplantation, increasing 40% over the last 10 years; the relative growth of retransplantation was most marked in heart and lung transplantation, increasing 66% and 217%, respectively. The growth of liver retransplantation was only 11%. Unadjusted graft survival remains significantly lower after retransplantation in the most recent cohorts analyzed. Even with careful case mix adjustments, the risk of graft failure following retransplantation is significantly higher than that observed for primary transplants.

Diagnosis and management of allograft failure

The article focuses on diagnosis and management of allograft failure in four main categories: (1) ischemic-reperfusion injury (primary nonfunction), (2) technical complications (hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis), (3) chronic rejection, and (4) recurrent disease. It also discusses the complex problems involved in retransplantation for allograft failure.

An outcome comparison between primary liver transplantation and retransplantation based on the pretransplant MELD score

Survival after liver retransplantation (RLTX) is worse than after primary liver transplantation (LTX). We studied retrospectively the 2-year outcome in 44 patients who received RLTX more than 30 days after the primary transplant and in 669 after LTX performed between December 1993 and October 1999, focusing on the relation between the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score immediately pretransplant and post-transplant survival. A 2-year survival for RLTX was inferior to LTX (65.9% vs. 82.9%, P < or = 0.01). This difference was greatest with MELD scores < 25; survival within 2 years remained 11.3-18.2% less for RLTX than for LTX (6 months, P = 0.002; 12 months, P = 0.029, 24 months, P = 0.123). Mortality was mainly related to early vascular complications and sepsis. Two-year survival after RLTX was 81.8% if RLTX occurred < 2 years after LTX and 50% if the interval between LTX and RLTX was > 2 years (P < 0.05). MELD scores were similar in 2-year survivors and nonsurvivors after late RLTX (P = 0.82). Late RLTX is marked by poor survival regardless of the pretransplant MELD score. The MELD-based allocation system may not benefit patients who undergo retransplantation.

Assessment of short-term survival after liver transplant by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has demonstrated the ability to predict mortality among patients with chronic liver disease on the liver waiting list. The aim of this study was to assess the capability of the MELD score to correctly predict posttransplantation survival in Spain and to determine specific thresholds of MELD above which liver transplantation should be discouraged and the patient removed from the waiting list.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively applied the MELD score to 168 patients at time of transplantation to estimate 1-month and 3-month posttransplant survivals by stratifying them into four groups: group A, MELD score < 10; group B, MELD score 10-18; group C, MELD score 19-24; group D, MELD score > 24.

RESULTS

One-, 2-, and 3-month survivals were 84.3%, 80% and 79.5%, respectively. One-, 2-, and 3-month survivals in group A (18 patients) were identical (77.8%). In group B (80 patients), 1-month survival was 84.8%, and 2- and 3-month survivals were 78.4%. In group C (42 patients) 1-month survival was 90.5% and 2- and 3-month survivals were 88%. One-, 2-, and 3-month survivals in group D (28 patients) were 77.9%, 74%, and 70%, respectively. We defined a new group (group E) formed by patients with MELD score < or =24. When we compared 1-, 2-, and 3-month survival rates in group E (85.6%, 81.25%, and 81.25%, respectively) with survival rates in group D, the difference was not significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall outcomes of patients whose MELD scores were high at the time of liver transplantation were inferior to those of patients whose MELD scores were lower, there was no significant difference for specific thresholds of MELD above which liver transplantation should be discouraged and the patient removed from the waiting list.