Model for End-stage Liver Disease: Did the New Liver Allocation Policy Affect Waiting List Mortality? | Gastrointestinal Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
 United Network for Organ Sharing. www.UNOS.org. Accessed March 25, 2005
2.
 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network—HRSA: final rule with comment period.  Fed Regist 2005;1998 (63) 16296- 16338Google Scholar
3.
Malinchoc  MKamath  PSGordon  FDPeine  CJRank  Jter Borg  PC A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.  Hepatology 2000;31 (4) 864- 871PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Kamath  PSWiesner  RHMalinchoc  M  et al.  A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease.  Hepatology 2001;33 (2) 464- 470PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Rosen  HRPrieto  MCasanovas-Taltavull  T  et al.  Validation and refinement of survival models for liver retransplantation.  Hepatology 2003;38 (2) 460- 469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Farnsworth  NFagan  SPBerger  DHAwad  SS Child-Turcotte-Pugh versus MELD score as a predictor of outcome after elective and emergent surgery in cirrhotic patients.  Am J Surg 2004;188 (5) 580- 583PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kremers  WKvan Ijperen  MKim  WR  et al.  MELD score as a predictor of pretransplant and posttransplant survival in OPTN/UNOS status 1 patients.  Hepatology 2004;39 (3) 764- 769PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Said  AWilliams  JHolden  J  et al.  Model for end stage liver disease score predicts mortality across a broad spectrum of liver disease.  J Hepatol 2004;40 (6) 897- 903PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Dunn  WJamil  LHBrown  LS  et al.  MELD accurately predicts mortality in patients with alcoholic hepatitis.  Hepatology 2005;41 (2) 353- 358PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Wiesner  RH MELD/PELD and the allocation of deceased donor livers for status 1 recipients with acute fulminant hepatic failure, primary nonfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, and acute Wilson's disease.  Liver Transpl 2004;10 (10) ((suppl 2)) S17- S22PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Wiesner  RHFreeman  RBMulligan  DC Liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: the impact of the MELD allocation policy.  Gastroenterology 2004;127 (5) ((suppl 1)) S261- S267PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Moore  DEFeurer  IDSperoff  T  et al.  Impact of donor, technical, and recipient risk factors on survival and quality of life after liver transplantation.  Arch Surg 2005;140 (3) 273- 277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Belle  SHBeringer  KCDetre  KM An update on liver transplantation in the United States: recipient characteristics and outcome.  Clin Transpl 1995;19- 33PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Matowe  LKLeister  CACrivera  CKorth-Bradley  JM Interrupted time series analysis in clinical research.  Ann Pharmacother 2003;37 (7-8) 1110- 1116PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Salerno  FMerli  MCazzaniga  M  et al.  MELD score is better than Child-Pugh score in predicting 3-month survival of patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.  J Hepatol 2002;36 (4) 494- 500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Merion  RMWolfe  RADykstra  DMLeichtman  ABGillespie  BHeld  PJ Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation.  Liver Transpl 2003;9 (1) 12- 18PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Edwards  EHarper  A Does MELD work for relisted candidates?  Liver Transpl 2004;10 (10) ((suppl 2)) S10- S16PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Santori  GAndorno  EAntonucci  A  et al.  Potential predictive value of the MELD score for short-term mortality after liver transplantation.  Transplant Proc 2004;36 (3) 533- 534PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Freeman  RBWiesner  RHEdwards  EHarper  AMerion  RWolfe  R Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan.  Liver Transpl 2004;10 (1) 7- 15PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Kanwal  FDulai  GSSpiegel  BMYee  HFGralnek  IM A comparison of liver transplantation outcomes in the pre- vs post-MELD eras.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21 (2) 169- 177PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
McDiarmid  SVMerion  RMDykstra  DMHarper  AM Selection of pediatric candidates under the PELD system.  Liver Transpl 2004;10 (10) ((suppl 2)) S23- S30PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Santori  GAndorno  EMorelli  N  et al.  MELD score versus conventional UNOS status in predicting short-term mortality after liver transplantation.  Transpl Int 2005;18 (1) 65- 72PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Article
November 1, 2007

Model for End-stage Liver Disease: Did the New Liver Allocation Policy Affect Waiting List Mortality?

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery (Drs Austin, Poulose, and Feurer), Preventive Medicine (Drs Ray and Arbogast), and Biostatistics (Drs Arbogast and Feurer) and Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation (Dr Pinson), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Arch Surg. 2007;142(11):1079-1085. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.11.1079
Abstract

Objective  To examine the impact of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) on waiting list mortality.

Design  Interrupted time series with a nominal inception point of the intervention on February 27, 2002.

Setting  United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file data from March 1, 1999, to July 30, 2004.

Participants  All adult candidates on the waiting list for liver transplantation in the United States during the study period.

Intervention  Implementation of the MELD policy.

Main Outcome Measures  Waiting list mortality, waiting time to transplantation, number of new registrants, and posttransplantation survival.

Results  Although no preintervention trend was identified, the policy change was associated with an immediate effect of increasing waiting list mortality by 2.2 deaths per 1000 registrants per month (from approximately 11 to 13 deaths per 1000 registrants per month; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 3.4; P = .001) followed by a postintervention decline in waiting list mortality over time (−0.09 death per 1000 registrants per month; 95% CI, −0.16 to −0.03; P <.001). An immediate effect of decreased waiting time was also noted (from approximately 294 to 250 days; −44.4 days; 95% CI, −77.1 to −11.7 days; P <.001), which reached a new, lower postintervention steady state. The intervention had no effect on the number of new registrants listed per month or on 3- and 6-month posttransplantation survival.

Conclusion  After an initial increase in waiting list mortality, the implementation of the MELD-based allocation policy was associated with an overall decline in waiting list mortality and time to transplantation.

×