Dynamic changes in MELD score not only predict survival on the waiting list but also overall survival after liver transplantation

The predictive value of MELD score for post‐transplant survival has been under constant debate since its implementation in 2001. Aim of this study was to assess the impact of alterations in MELD score throughout waiting time (WT) on post‐transplant survival. A single‐centre retrospective analysis of 1125 consecutive patients listed for liver transplantation between 1997 and 2009 was performed. The impact of MELD score and dynamic changes in MELD score (DeltaMELD), as well as age, sex, year of listing and WT were evaluated on waiting list mortality and post‐transplant survival. In this cohort, 539 (60%) patients were transplanted, 223 (25%) died on list and 142 (15%) were removed from the waiting list during WT. One‐, three‐ and five‐year survival after liver transplantation were 83%, 78% and 76% respectively. DeltaMELD as a continuous variable proved to be the only significant risk factor for overall survival after liver transplantation (hazard ratio (HR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.1, P = 0.013). The highest risk of post‐transplant death could be defined for patients with a DeltaMELD > 10 (HR: 4.87, 95% CI 2.09–11.35, P < 0.0001). In addition, DeltaMELD as well as MELD at listing showed a significant impact on waiting list mortality. DeltaMELD may provide an easy evaluation tool to identify patients on the liver transplant waiting list with a high mortality risk after transplantation in the current setting. Temporarily withholding and re‐evaluating these patients might improve overall outcome after liver transplantation.     

Clinical epidemiological analysis of the mortality rate of liver transplant candidates living in rural areas

MELD score has been used to predict 90‐day mortality of subjects listed for liver transplantation (OLT). Validation of MELD score for patients on the waiting list in transplant programmes serving rural areas in North America is lacking. A retrospective cohort of patients affected by end‐stage liver disease was studied to assess the mortality rate within 90 days after being listed at our transplant centre. Secondary aims were to identify differences between predicted and observed 90‐days mortality using MELD and MELDNa scores at the time of listing. Among 126 patients included in this study, waiting list mortality was 35.0%. Ninety‐day mortality was 21.1%, which was significantly greater than the mortality estimated by the MELD (9.1%, 95% CI: 6.6–11.5) and MELDNa (9.3%, 95%CI: 6.0–12.5). Despite this underestimation, AUC for MELD and MELDNa was 0.80 and 0.78 respectively. In our study, independent predictors of waiting list mortality were age, diagnosis of cholestatic disease and residence over 500 km from our transplant centre. MELD and MELDNa underestimated the 90‐day mortality in patients with liver failure living in rural areas. Validation of these models should be performed in other transplant centres serving patients with limited access to specialized services.     

Primary biliary cirrhosis has high wait‐list mortality among patients listed for liver transplantation

Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) have frequent episodes of cholangitis with potential for high mortality while waiting for liver transplantation. However, data on wait‐list mortality specific to liver disease etiology are limited. Using United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database (2002–2013), of 81 592 listed patients, 11 284 (13.8%) died while waiting for transplant. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) patients (N = 3491) compared to PSC (N = 4905) differed with age (56 vs. 47 years), female gender (88% vs. 33%), black race (6% vs. 13%), and BMI (25 vs. 27), P < 0.0001 for all. A total of 993 (11.8%) patients died while waiting for the transplant list. Using competing risk analysis controlling for baseline recipient factors and accounting for receipt of liver transplantation (LT), PBC compared to patients with PSC had higher overall and 3‐month wait‐list mortality (21.6% vs. 12.7% and 5.0% vs. 2.9%, respectively, Gray's test P < 0.001), [1.25 (1.07–1.47)]. Repeat analysis including all etiologies showed higher wait‐list mortality for PBC compared to most etiologies, except for patients listed for diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease (ALD) + hepatitis C virus (HCV). Patients with PBC have high mortality while waiting for liver transplantation. These novel findings suggest that patients with PBC listed for LT may be considered for model for end‐stage disease (MELD) exception points.     

Sex‐Based Disparities in Liver Transplant Rates in the United States

We sought to characterize sex‐based differences in access to deceased donor liver transplantation. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were used to analyze n = 78 998 adult candidates listed before (8/1997–2/2002) or after (2/2002–2/2007) implementation of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD)‐based liver allocation. The primary outcome was deceased donor liver transplantation. Cox regression was used to estimate covariate‐adjusted differences in transplant rates by sex. Females represented 38% of listed patients in the pre‐MELD era and 35% in the MELD era. Females had significantly lower covariate‐adjusted transplant rates in the pre‐MELD era (by 9%; p < 0.0001) and in the MELD era (by 14%; p < 0.0001). In the MELD era, the disparity in transplant rate for females increased as waiting list mortality risk increased, particularly for MELD scores ≥15. Substantial geographic variation in sex‐based differences in transplant rates was observed. Some areas of the United States had more than a 30% lower covariate‐adjusted transplant rate for females compared to males in the MELD era. In conclusion, the disparity in liver transplant rates between females and males has increased in the MELD era. It is especially troubling that the disparity is magnified among patients with high MELD scores and in certain regions of the United States.     

Reduced Mortality with Right-Lobe Living Donor Compared to Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation When Analyzed from the Time of Listing

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) is not yet a fully accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver failure in the Western hemisphere because of concerns about donor safety and inferior recipient outcomes. An outcome analysis from the time of listing for all adult patients who were listed for liver transplantation (LT) at our center was performed. From 2000 to 2006, 1091 patients were listed for LT. One hundred fifty-four patients (LRD; 14%) had suitable live donors and 153 (99%) underwent RLDLT. Of the remaining patients (DD/Waiting List; n = 937), 350 underwent deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT); 312 died or dropped off the waiting list; and 275 were still waiting at the time of this analysis. The LRD group had shorter mean waiting times (6.0 months vs. 9.8 months; p < 0.001). Although medical model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar at the time of listing, MELD scores at LT were significantly higher in the DD/Waiting List group (15.4 vs. 19.5; p = 0.002). Patients in Group 1 had a survival advantage with RLDLT from the time of listing (1-year survival 90% vs. 80%; p < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to document a survival advantage at time of listing for RLDLT over DDLT.     

Is MELD score sufficient to predict not only death on waiting list,but also post‐transplant survival?

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has emerged as a useful tool in predicting mortality in patients awaiting liver transplantation. There is still, however, discussion as to whether further parameters could improve the sensitivity and specificity of the MELD score. From 1997 to 2003, 621 adult patients with end-stage liver disease were listed for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Patients suffering from hepatoma were excluded from analysis (113 patients). The MELD score was investigated at the time of listing (MELD ON) and of coming off the list (MELD OFF). Patients who died while on the waiting list showed a significant increase in their MELD score during the waiting time (MELD ON: 21 +/- 7 vs. MELD OFF: 28 +/- 9) as well as a significantly higher MELD ON compared with patients who were transplanted (MELD ON: 16 +/- 5 vs. MELD OFF: 17 +/- 7) or removed from the waiting list (MELD ON: 16 +/- 6 vs. MELD OFF: 12 +/- 3). Multivariate analysis identified MELD ON, ascites and recurrent infection as independent risk factors for death on the waiting list (P < 0.01). MELD score was not identified as a predictor for the post-transplant survival rate. MELD score is a strong predictor for death on the waiting list, but refractory ascites and recurrent infection are independent risk factors, too.     

Does the meld system provide equal access to liver transplantation for patients with different ABO blood groups?

This study investigates the relationship between blood group and waiting time until transplantation or death on the waiting list. All patients listed for liver transplantation in the Netherlands between 15 December 2006 and 31 December 2012, were included. Study variables were gender, age, year of listing, diagnosis, previous transplantations, blood group, urgency, and MELD score. Using a competing risks analysis, separate cumulative incidence curves were constructed for death on the waiting list and transplantation and used to evaluate outcomes.In 517 listings, the mean death rate per 100 patient‐years was 10.4. A total of 375 (72.5% of all listings) were transplanted. Of all transplantations, 352 (93.9%) were ABO‐identical and 23 (6.1%) ABO‐compatible. The 5‐year cumulative incidence of death was 11.2% (SE 1.4%), and of transplantation 72.5% (SE 2.0%). Patient blood group had no multivariate significant impact on the hazard of dying on the waiting list nor on transplantation. Age, MELD score, and urgency status were significantly related to the death on the waiting list and transplantation. More recent listing had higher probability of being transplanted. In the MELD era, patient blood group status does not have a significant impact on liver transplant waiting list mortality nor on waiting time for transplantation.     

Developments in pediatric liver transplantation since implementation of the new allocation rules in Eurotransplant

Liver allocation in the Eurotransplant (ET) region has changed from a waiting time to an urgency‐based system using the model of end‐stage liver disease (MELD) score in 2006. To allow timely transplantation, pediatric recipients are allocated by an assigned pediatric MELD independent of severity of illness. Consequences for children listed at our center were evaluated by retrospective analysis of all primary pediatric liver transplantation (LTX) from deceased donors between 2002 and 2010 (110 LTX before/50 LTX after new allocation). Of 50 children transplanted in the MELD era, 17 (34%) underwent LTX with a high‐urgent status that was real in five patients (median lab MELD 22, waiting time five d) and assigned in 12 patients (lab MELD 7, waiting time 35 d). Thirty‐three children received a liver by their assigned pediatric MELD (lab MELD 15, waiting time 255 d). Waiting time in the two periods was similar, whereas the wait‐list mortality decreased (from about four children/yr to about one child/yr). One‐ and three‐yr patient survival showed no significant difference (94.5/97.7%; p = 0.385) as did one‐ and three‐yr graft survival (80.7/75.2%; and 86.5/82%; p = 0.436 before/after). Introduction of a MELD‐based allocation system in ET with assignment of a granted score for pediatric recipients has led to a clear priorization of children resulting in a low wait‐list mortality and good clinical outcome.     

Sex‐based disparities in delisting for being “too sick” for liver transplantation

Women with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT) experience higher rates of waitlist mortality than men; it is unknown whether practices surrounding delisting for being “too sick” for LT contribute to this disparity beyond death alone. We conducted an analysis of patients listed for LT in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network not receiving exception points from May 1, 2007 to July 1, 2014 with a primary outcome of delisting with removal codes of “too sick” or “medically unsuitable.” A total of 44 388 patients were included; 4458 were delisted for being “too sick” for LT. Delisting was more frequent in women (11% vs 9%, P < .001). Compared to delisted men, delisted women differed in age (58 vs 57), non–hepatitis C virus listing diagnoses (69% vs 56%), hepatic encephalopathy (36% vs 31%), height (161.9 vs 177.0 cm), private insurance (47% vs 52%), and Karnofsky performance status (60 vs 70) (P < .001 for all). There were no differences in Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease including serum sodium and Child Pugh Scores. A competing risk analysis demonstrated that female sex was independently associated with a 10% (confidence interval 2%‐18%) higher risk of delisting when accounting for rates of death and transplantation and adjusting for confounders. This study demonstrates a significant disparity in delisting practices by sex, highlighting the need for better assessments of sickness, particularly in women.     

Radiotherapy as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

About 20% of the patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are eventually delisted as a result of local tumor progression. Herein, we report our experience with conformal radiotherapy (CRT) as a novel bridge to LT. From July 2006 to August 2008, CRT was delivered in five or six fractions to patients with HCC listed for LT in whom either prior local therapies had failed or those not suitable for standard local therapies because of poor liver function or anatomic issues. Radiotherapy (RT) volumes and doses were individualized to spare the uninvolved liver with the goal of stabilizing the most aggressive HCC(s) in an attempt to reduce the chance of delisting as a result of tumor progression. Ten patients with tumor diameters ranging from 25 to 108 mm were treated. Eight out of 10 tumors were beyond Milan criteria. The median age was 55 (range 36–64). Seventy percent of the patients were male subjects. The median medical MELD score was 11 (range 9–17). The median irradiated HCC volume was 79 cc (range 15–798 cc). The median RT delivered dose was 33 Gy (range 8.5–54 Gy), in one to six fractions. The median dose to the uninvolved liver was 13.3 Gy (range 1.8–16.5). Nine patients completed their CRT as planned and one patient was transplanted after the first fraction. The treatment was well tolerated: Grade 1 nausea was reported in three patients, the platelet count decreased from 154 to 98 in one patient, and there were no other complications. No treated tumors progressed during or after the treatment. Two tumors remained stable; the rest had 10–50% regression, which was sustained on follow‐up imaging. The median follow up was 14 months (range 3–20). Local tumor control was achieved in all treated tumors.Two patients were delisted as a result of cancer progression outside the treated field (one in the context of systemic metastases; yet another with progression of other untreated HCC in the liver). Three patients are still waiting for transplantation. Five patients underwent LT with no complications attributable to the CRT. Explant pathology, available for five patients, showed tumor necrosis and fibrosis with sparing of the untreated parenchyma. All transplanted patients treated with CRT are cancer‐free. CRT is a safe and efficacious local bridging therapy for patients with advanced HCC who are on the waiting list for LT. Further studies are warranted to compare the effectiveness of CRT to other local treatment regimens for HCC.     

Hyponatremia a valuable predictor of early mortality in patients with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation

The current policy for organ allocation in liver transplantation is to give priority to the sickest patients mostly using model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score in ranking. However, other factors as serum sodium may be of value in predicting early mortality. In this single-center study, patients with cirrhosis over age 14 on the liver transplant wait-list from September 1998 to June 2007 were followed for six months from the time of listing to evaluate the value of hyponatremia on mortality. Of 612 listed patients, 51 were transplanted who were excluded from survival analysis and 55 died without transplantation within the first three months. The numbers of transplanted and dead patients during months 3-6 were 29 and 24, respectively. Both MELD score and serum sodium at the time of listing were independent predictors of early mortality. On bivariate analysis, serum sodium of <130 mEq/L beside MELD was a significant predictor of mortality within 90 and 180 d. Serum sodium level <135 mEq/L masked the difference in mortality between patients with refractory and non-refractory ascites. Serum sodium level of <130 mEq/L and an increased MELD score are significant predictors of early mortality in patients listed for liver transplantation.     

Lack of Listing Status Awareness: Results of a Single‐Center Survey of Hemodialysis Patients

This study surveyed hemodialysis patients in an urban transplant center serving a predominantly African American population to identify existing and potential barriers to transplantation. The survey used the Dialysis Patient Transplant Questionnaire (DPTQ) to collect self‐reported data including interest in a deceased donor kidney transplant and self‐reported listing status. We compared patients’ survey data to their UNOS listing and computerized medical record at time of interview. Among the 116 patients surveyed, 83 (71.6%) reported interest in a deceased donor kidney transplant. Eighteen (52.9%) of the 34 patients undergoing pretransplantation workup were unaware of their true listing status, and 88.9% of these patients mistakenly believed they were wait listed. All of the patients who mistakenly thought they were listed were undergoing workup. Finding that a significant number of hemodialysis patients who want a deceased donor kidney transplant mistakenly think they are listed when they are not is a documentable deficiency in communication and a potential barrier to transplantation. The finding highlights a correctable problem in communication and work flow that could help to improve transplant center effectiveness. It also reveals that self‐reported waiting list status significantly overestimated true waiting list status for our patients at time of interview.     

Height Contributes to the Gender Difference in Wait‐List Mortality Under the MELD‐Based Liver Allocation System

This study examined factors associated with the gender disparity in wait‐list mortality in the MELD era. Adult patients listed for liver transplantation from 2002 to 2008 were included. Females [12 585(36%)] and males [22 126(64%)] differed clinically by age (54 vs. 52 years), height (1.6 vs. 1.8 m), listing estimated glomerular filtration rate [(eGFR); 70 vs. 83 mL/min] and cirrhosis etiology. Holding MELD constant, females were at 19% (95% CI, 1.13–1.25, p < 0.001) higher risk of wait‐list mortality than males under the current allocation system. The relative hazard increased with worsening renal function, whether measured by serum creatinine or eGFR. Adjustment for MELD, age, African‐American race, cirrhosis etiology, region and ABO group attenuated this relative hazard (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10–1.22; p < 0.001) but additional adjustment for height completely explained this gender disparity in wait‐list mortality (HR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.98–1.12; p = 0.2). Transplantation rates, however, remained lower among females, even after adjustment for height (HR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82–0.92; p < 0.001). In conclusion, under the current liver allocation system, women have a 19% increased risk of wait‐list mortality compared to men with the same MELD scores. Height contributes to this gender disparity, possibly reflecting differences in transplantation rates for shorter individuals.     

Mortality while awaiting liver retransplantation: predictability of MELD scores

INTRODUCTION: Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at the time of listing on the transplant waiting list have been shown to accurately predict 3-month mortality in adults. There is no data assessing the accuracy of the MELD scores in predicting mortality of patients awaiting liver retransplantation. We sought to determine the outcome of patients listed for retransplantation at a single center and the accuracy of MELD scores in predicting mortality on the transplant waiting list. METHODS: A retrospective review of adult patients at a single center listed for a second liver transplantation during the years 1993 to 2000. MELD scores and a concordance statistic were calculated at the time of initial listing and initial transplant as well as the time of relisting for a second transplant and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 weeks after relisting. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients in the study, 43 (68%) received a second transplant, and 20 (32%) died while awaiting retransplantation. Of the patients receiving a second transplant, 13 (30%) died within 1 year of receiving the transplant. The most common cause of death on the waiting list was sepsis (50%), hepatorenal syndrome (20%), and multiorgan failure (10%), whereas the majority of deaths posttransplantation were sepsis-related (69%). At the time of relisting the c-statistic for MELD scores predicting death after 1 week on the waiting list was 0.78 (P = .007). After 3 months on the waiting list, the c-stat was largely unchanged (0.76, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that MELD scores may predict mortality on the transplant waiting list for patients listed for a second transplant.     

Comparison of seven liver allocation models with respect to lives saved among patients on the liver transplant waiting list

The patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) on the liver transplant waiting list are prioritized for transplant based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. We developed and used an innovative approach to compare MELD to six proposed alternatives with respect to waiting list mortality. Our analysis was based on United Network for Organ Sharing data of patients with ESLD on the waiting list between January 2006 and June 2009. We compared six allocation models to MELD. Two models were based on reweighting the variables used by MELD: an "updated" MELD, and ReFit MELD. Four models also included serum sodium: MESO, MeldNa, UKELD, and ReFit MELDNa. We estimated that UKELD and the updated MELD would result in significantly fewer lives saved. There were no significant differences between the other models. Our new approach can supplement standard methods to provide insight into the relative performance of liver allocation models in reducing waiting list mortality. Our analysis suggests that UKELD and the updated MELD score would not be optimal for reducing waiting list mortality in the United States.     

Could metabolic liver function tests predict mortality on waiting list for liver transplantation? A study on 560 patients

Ecochard M, Boillot O, Guillaud O, Roman S, Adham M, Mion F, Dumortier J. Could metabolic liver function tests predict mortality on waiting list for liver transplantation? A study on 560 patients.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 755–765. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: Allocation of graft in liver transplantation (LT) depends mainly on Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We studied the prognostic ability of three metabolic liver function tests in 560 cirrhotic patients listed for transplantation, in comparison with MELD and Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) scores. Methods: Indocyanine green retention rate (ICG), aminopyrine breath test (ABT), and galactose elimination capacity were performed at the time of listing in addition to standard biological parameters. Seventy‐three patients died on waiting list, 438 were transplanted, and 73 died after LT. Cox regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves with c‐statistics were calculated after stratification according to CTP and MELD score. Results: For the mortality before transplantation, c‐statistics showed that ICG and ABT had a slightly better prognostic ability (0.73 and 0.68, respectively) than MELD score (0.66), and similar to CTP score (0.70). ABT’s prognostic ability remained significant once the MELD score (below and above 20) had already been taken into account. Only ICG had a prognostic ability to predict the survival after LT, even after stratification according to MELD and CTP score. Conclusions: Our results strongly support that ABT and ICG may be useful in the ranking of the patients in LT list, adding prognosis information in association with MELD score.     

Patient selection criteria for liver transplantation

The demand for liver transplantation has progressively increased in the setting of a relatively fixed cadaveric organ supply over the past 5 years. An increasing percentage of listed patients are dying waiting for an organ, with additional listed candidates being disqualified as they became too sick for transplantation. This disparity between organ demand and supply has led to continued reassessment of selection and listing criteria for transplantation as well as periodic revisions of allocation and distribution policies for cadaveric livers. The minimal listing criteria adopted in the United States in the late 1990s initially served to prevent inappropriate organ allocation to patients who had risen to high priority for a donor organ simply because they had been listed early and had a longer total waiting time. Many of these patients had lesser disease severity and immediate need for transplantation than other patients competing for the same donor organ but listed later in the natural history of their end-stage liver disease. The United Network for Organ Sharing has continuously revised organ allocation and distribution policies in an attempt to balance the ethical principles of medical justice and utility, which potentially conflict with one another. The principle of justice advocates for the sickest patient who has been waiting for the longest time, whereas that of utility favors the patient with the highest likelihood of achieving successful outcome. Throughout all of the changes in organ allocation rules, patients with fulminant hepatic failure have continued to receive the highest priority for organs. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has replaced the Child-Turcotte- Pugh system for assessing disease severity and predicted mortality in patients with chronic liver failure. However, the use of MELD has favored listed candidates who have the worst post-transplant survivals. Other options that are being explored to expand the donor pool include the use of marginal donors, split liver transplants, living donors, and domino transplants, with xenotransplantation still remaining experimental.     

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1997–2006

Liver transplantation in 2006 generally resembled previous years, with fewer candidates waiting for deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT), continuing a trend initiated with the implementation of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Candidate age distribution continued to skew toward older ages with fewer children listed in 2006 than in any prior year. Total transplants increased due to more DDLT with slightly fewer living donor liver transplants (LDLT). Waiting list deaths and time to transplant continued to improve. In 2006, there also were fewer DDLT for patients with MELD <15, fewer pediatric Status 1A/B transplants and more transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Adjusted patient and graft survival rates were similar for LDLT and DDLT. This article also contains in-depth analyses of transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recipients with HCC had lower adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival than recipients without HCC. HCC recipients who received pretransplant ablative treatments had superior adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival compared to HCC recipients who did not. Intestinal transplantation continued to slowly increase with the largest number of candidates on the waiting list since 1997. Survival rates have increased over time. Small children waiting for intestine grafts continue to have the highest waiting list mortality.     

The Impact of MELD/PELD Revisions on the Mortality of Liver–Intestine Transplantation Candidates

Patients listed for liver–intestine transplantation suffer higher waiting list mortality than those listed for liver‐only, thus leading to policy revisions seeking to close the gap. We sought to determine the impact of key model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)/pediatric end‐stage liver disease (PELD) policy modifications on the waiting list mortality of adult and pediatric liver–intestine candidates as compared to liver‐only candidates. Analysis of UNOS data separated into adult and pediatric categories and based on time periods of policy implementation revealed higher mortality in liver–intestine candidates over all time periods studied (p < 0.001 pediatric and adult). After implementation of a revision to augment their MELD scores based on a sliding scale, adult liver–intestine candidates with calculated MELD > 15 no longer suffered higher mortality although this change did not completely eliminate the mortality disparity for candidates with MELD < 15 (p < 0.01). The waiting list mortality of pediatric liver–intestine candidates dropped significantly after a revision that gave them 23 additional MELD/PELD points (p < 0.01) although the mortality disparity with pediatric liver‐only candidates was not eliminated. Following this revision, mortality in pediatric liver‐only and liver–intestine Status 1 candidates was similar, however more liver–intestine candidates were listed as Status 1B. This data demonstrates that a mortality disparity remains for liver–intestine candidates compared with candidates listed for liver‐only .