Abstract

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has been successfully used to prioritize patients on the United States liver transplant waiting list since its adoption in 2002. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (OPTN) allocation policy has evolved over the years, and notable recent changes include Share 35, inclusion of serum sodium in the MELD score, and a ‘delay and cap’ policy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. We explored the potential of a registrant’s change in 30-day MELD scores (ΔMELD30) to improve allocation both before and after these policy changes. Current MELD and ΔMELD30 were evaluated using cause-specific hazards models for waitlist dropout based on US liver transplant registrants added to the waitlist between 06/30/2003 and 6/30/2013. Two composite scores were constructed and then evaluated on UNOS data spanning the current policy era (01/02/2016 to 09/07/2018). Predictive accuracy was evaluated using the C-index for model discrimination and by comparing observed and predicted waitlist dropout probabilities for model calibration. After the change to MELD-Na, increased dropout associated with ΔMELD30 jumps is no longer evident at MELD scores below 30. However, the adoption of Share 35 has potentially resulted in discrepancies in waitlist dropout for patients with sharp MELD increases at higher MELD scores. Use of the ΔMELD30 to add additional points or serve as a potential tiebreaker for patients with rapid deterioration may extend the benefit of Share 35 to better include those in most critical need.

Highlights

  • The Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system has been highly successful in prioritizing patients on the waiting list for a liver transplant in the United States since its implementation in 2002 [1, 2]

  • The ΔMELD score was originally proposed by Merion et al [9], who found that a ΔMELD of 5 or more within 30 days was a significant predictor of waitlist mortality even after accounting for serial MELD scores

  • The percentage of observations having a ΔMELD30 of 5 or more was 8.9% (60,401/675,018), while 3.2% (44,768/675,018) of observations had a ΔMELD30 of 10 or more and 6.6% (44,768/675,018) of observations had a 30% increase in MELD score over 30 days

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system has been highly successful in prioritizing patients on the waiting list for a liver transplant in the United States since its implementation in 2002 [1, 2]. As a result numerous modifications and enhancements to the MELD score have been proposed during the intervening period, including the incorporation of serum sodium [5, 6] and age [7] to the MELD score, reweighting of the MELD score components [8], and the change in serial MELD scores [9,10,11]. The latter approach, dubbed the delta MELD (ΔMELD) score, was conceived to address sudden or rapid deteriorations in disease status [9]. Since time between MELD measurements is not accounted for, this definition of the ΔMELD seemingly fails to differentiate between patients experiencing a rapid worsening of disease versus those with a more gradual decline

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call