Geographic Differences in Event Rates by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score

The ability of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score to accurately predict death among liver transplant candidates allows for evaluation of geographic differences in transplant access for patients with similar death risk. Adjusted models of time to transplant and death for adult liver transplant candidates listed between 2002 and 2003 were developed to test for differences in MELD score among Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions and Donation Service Areas (DSA). The average MELD and relative risk (RR) of death varied somewhat by region (from 0.82 to 1.28), with only two regions having significant differences in RRs. Greater variability existed in adjusted transplant rates by region; 7 of 11 regions differed significantly from the national average. Simulation results indicate that an allocation system providing regional priority to candidates at MELD scores > or = 15 would increase the median MELD score at transplant and reduce the total number of deaths across DSA quintiles. Simulation results also indicate that increasing priority to higher MELD candidates would reduce the percentage variation among DSAs of transplants to patients with MELD scores > or = 15. The variation decrease was due to increasing the MELD score at time of transplantation in the DSAs with the lowest MELD scores at transplant.     

Reduced Priority MELD Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Does Not Adversely Impact Candidate Survival Awaiting Liver Transplantation

The liver organ allocation policy of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). The policy provides additional priority for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are awaiting deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, this priority was reduced on February 27, 2003 to a MELD of 20 for stage T1 and of 24 for stage T2 HCC. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of reduced priority on HCC candidate survival while on the waiting list. The UNOS database was reviewed for all HCC candidates listed after February 27, 2002, The HCC candidates were grouped into two time periods: MELD 1 (listed between February 27, 2002, and February 26, 2003) and MELD 2 (listed between February 27, 2003 and February 26, 2004). For the two time periods, the national DDLT incidence rates for HCC patients were 1.44 versus 1.53 DDLT per person-year (p = NS) and the waiting times were similar for the two periods (138.0 +/- 196.8 vs. 129.0 +/- 133.8 days; p = NS). Furthermore, the 3-, 6- and 12-month candidate, patient survival and dropout rates were also similar nationally. Regional differences in rates of DDLT for HCC were observed during both MELD periods. Consequently, the reduced MELD score for stage T1 and T2 HCC candidates awaiting DDLT has not had an impact nationally either on their survival on the waiting list or on their ability to obtain a liver transplant within a reasonable time frame. However, regional variations point to the need for reform in how organs are allocated for HCC at the regional level.     

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.     

United Network for Organ Sharing regional variations in appeal denial rates with non‐standard Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End‐Stage Liver Disease exceptions: support for a national review board

Although it has been generally recognized that there are inconsistencies among Regional Review Boards in the assignment of points for model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)/pediatric end‐stage liver disease (PELD) exception patients with resulting considerable variation in appeal denial rates, data to actually prove this have been limited. We reviewed 6533 MELD/PELD exception applications submitted between 2005 and 2008, calculated the variation in approval/denial rates, and followed these cases through mid‐2013 to assess the effects on patient outcomes. We found highly significant regional variations in denial rates for appeals by exception patients and in transplantation rates. The odds of transplant for patients whose appeals are approved is 2.45 times that of patients not approved; that this effect does not vary by region suggests that the variation in transplant rates is driven, at least in part, by the variation in appeal denial rates. Health deterioration or death accounts for more than two‐thirds of wait list removals among patients removed for reasons other than transplant. Our findings add to the weight of evidence that a national review board that uses current clinical expertise, peer review literature, and data to consistently assign priority could reduce regional inequities and move toward equitable allocation of organs and compliance with the United States Department of Health & Human Services Final Rule.     

Regional Variability in Liver Waiting List Removals Causes False Ascertainment of Waiting List Deaths

Inconsistent identification of reasons for removal from the liver transplant waiting list by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions may contribute to regional variability in wait‐list death rates. We analyzed OPTN and Social Security Administration (SSA) reported deaths of 103 364 liver transplant candidates listed May 8, 2003–April 17, 2011, and determined regional variability in risk of death attributable to differences in use of OPTN removal codes. Only 26% of candidates removed as “too sick” died within 90 days of delisting; 6335 deaths after delisting were not reported to OPTN. The ratio of number of candidates removed as “too sick” to number who died on the waiting list varied by region from 0.23 to 0.94, indicating substantial variability in use of removal codes. Including SSA‐reported deaths within 90 days of delisting reduced regional variability in risk of death by 48% compared with deaths on the list alone, and by 35% compared with deaths plus the “too sick” designation. Codes for delisting liver transplant candidates are inconsistently applied among OPTN regions, spuriously elevating estimated regional variability in risk of wait‐list death. This variability is ameliorated by including SSA‐ reported deaths within 90 days of delisting.     

Prognostic value of MELD score and donor quality in liver transplantation: implications for the donor recipient match

The model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been adopted by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in 2002 as the standard priority rule for the liver transplantation waiting list. We retrospectively calculated the pretransplant MELD scores of 226 consecutive adult grafts. We did not correct for hepatocellular carcinoma comorbidity or for the etiology of liver disease. Cases were categorized according to the MELD score: class I, MELD scores between 6 and 14 (low MELD, n = 116); class II, MELD score between 15 and 24 (intermediate MELD, n = 78); class III, MELD score between 25 and 42 (high MELD, n = 32). All patients were transplanted using deceased donors. Grafts were categorized also according to donor quality (standard donor vs nonstandard donor). Sorting into categories was performed before transplant by officers of the Central-South Italian Transplant Organization overregional organ procurement agencies, namely OCST. Differences in Kaplan-Meier graft survivals (GS) between low MELD class and high MELD class were statistically significant (P < .01). Among standard donors, the 6-month GS were 83%, 94%, and 63% for the low, intermediate, and high MELD subset, respectively, differences that did not reach statistical significance. Among nonstandard donors, the 6-month GS were 77%, 71%, and 38% for the low, intermediate, and high MELD classes, respectively. Differences between low MELD class and intermediate MELD class and between low MELD class and high MELD class were statistically significant (P < .01). We strongly suggest that the utilization of nonstandard organs should be avoided for patients with high MELD scores.     

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.     

Early Changes in Liver Distribution Following Implementation of Share 35

In June 2013, a change to the liver waitlist priority algorithm was implemented. Under Share 35, regional candidates with MELD ≥ 35 receive higher priority than local candidates with MELD < 35. We compared liver distribution and mortality in the first 12 months of Share 35 to an equivalent time period before. Under Share 35, new listings with MELD ≥ 35 increased slightly from 752 (9.2% of listings) to 820 (9.7%, p = 0.3), but the proportion of deceased‐donor liver transplants (DDLTs) allocated to recipients with MELD ≥ 35 increased from 23.1% to 30.1% (p < 0.001). The proportion of regional shares increased from 18.9% to 30.4% (p < 0.001). Sharing of exports was less clustered among a handful of centers (Gini coefficient decreased from 0.49 to 0.34), but there was no evidence of change in CIT (p = 0.8). Total adult DDLT volume increased from 4133 to 4369, and adjusted odds of discard decreased by 14% (p = 0.03). Waitlist mortality decreased by 30% among patients with baseline MELD > 30 (SHR = 0.70, p < 0.001) with no change for patients with lower baseline MELD (p = 0.9). Posttransplant length‐of‐stay (p = 0.2) and posttransplant mortality (p = 0.9) remained unchanged. In the first 12 months, Share 35 was associated with more transplants, fewer discards, and lower waitlist mortality, but not at the expense of CIT or early posttransplant outcomes.     

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and organ allocation from cadaveric donors for 198 liver transplantation procedures performed in a single center

Since February 2002, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) proposed to adopt a modified version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) to assign priority on the waiting list for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). In this study, we evaluated the impact of MELD score on liver allocation in a single center series of 198 liver recipients (mean age of patients, 52.21+/-8.92 years), considering the relationship between clinical urgency derived from MELD score (overall MELD, 18.7+/-6.83; MELD <15 in 69 patients, MELD >or=15 in 129 patients) and geographical distribution of cadaveric donors (inside/outside Liguria Region, 125/73). The waiting time for OLT was 230+/-248 days, whereas the 3-month and 1-year patient survivals were 87.37% and 79.79%, respectively. No difference was observed for MELD score retrospectively calculated for patients who underwent OLT before February 2002 (n=71) compared with MELD score calculated for patients who received a liver thereafter (18.26+/-6.68 vs 18.94+/-6.92; P= .504). No significant difference was found in waiting time before and after adoption of MELD score (213+/-183 vs 238+/-278 days; P= .500), or by stratifying patients for MELD <15/>or=15 (225+/-234 vs 232+/-256 days; P= .851). Using the geographical distribution of donors as a grouping variable (outside vs inside Liguria Region), no significance occurred for MELD score (19.68+/-7.42 vs 18.17+/-6.42; P= .135) or waiting time (211+/-226 vs 242+/-261 days; P= .394). In our series, more OLTs were performed among sicker patients and no differences were found in the management of livers procured from cadaveric donors outside or inside Liguria Region. However, further efforts are needed to reduce the waiting time among patients with higher MELD scores.     

Database Comparison of the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) and the SRTR U.S. Transplant Registry†,‡

Data submitted by transplant programs to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) are used by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) for policy development, performance evaluation and research. This study compared OPTN/SRTR data with data extracted from medical records by research coordinators from the nine‐center A2ALL study. A2ALL data were collected independently of OPTN data submission (48 data elements among 785 liver transplant candidates/recipients; 12 data elements among 386 donors). At least 90% agreement occurred between OPTN/SRTR and A2ALL for 11/29 baseline recipient elements, 4/19 recipient transplant or follow‐up elements and 6/12 donor elements. For the remaining recipient and donor elements, >10% of values were missing in OPTN/SRTR but present in A2ALL, confirming that missing data were largely avoidable. Other than variables required for allocation, the percentage missing varied widely by center. These findings support an expanded focus on data quality control by OPTN/SRTR for a broader variable set than those used for allocation. Center‐specific monitoring of missing values could substantially improve the data.     

Impact of Dialysis and Older Age on Survival after Liver Transplantation

Because creatinine is heavily weighed in the MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) score, we sought to determine the impact of MELD-based organ allocation on outcomes after transplantation in the pre- and post-MELD eras, focusing on recipients over age 65 on dialysis prior to transplant. A total of 20 196 patients from the UNOS database were analyzed. Comparing the pre-MELD to MELD era, there was a 41% increase in patients on dialysis (p<0.0001), and a 117% increase in combined liver/kidney transplants (p<0.0001). In the pre-MELD era, 1-year patient survival in recipients greater and less than age 65 on dialysis who received liver transplant alone was 56.8% and 76.4%, respectively (p=0.13). In the MELD era these rates were 50.7% and 77.8% (p=0.04). In the pre-MELD era, 1-year patient survival in recipients greater and less than age 65 on dialysis who underwent combined liver/kidney transplantation was 25.0% and 83.2%, respectively (p=0.0002). In the MELD era, these rates were 67.0% and 82.5% (p=0.18). In conclusion, a greater proportion of patients in the MELD era are on dialysis prior to transplant, and more receive combined liver/kidney transplants compared with the pre-MELD era. Candidates over age 65 who are on dialysis at the time of transplant have decreased survival after isolated liver transplantation.     

Different methods of creatinine measurement significantly affect MELD scores.

Bilirubin (Bil) interferes with creatinine (Cr) measurement. Different laboratory methods are used to overcome this problem. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scoring incorporates Cr and is used to prioritize patients for liver transplantation. Thus, MELD scores may vary with different Cr measurements influencing patients' priority. Our aim was to evaluate 4 different Cr assays (O'Leary modified Jaffe [mJCr], compensated [rate blanked] kinetic Jaffe [cJCr], enzymatic [ECr], and standard kinetic Jaffe [JCr]) in patients with abnormal liver function tests and assess changes in MELD score. A total of 403 consecutive samples from 158 patients' Cr assays were evaluated.. Bland-Altman plots and MELD scores were also evaluated for each assay. Agreement was found to be poor among all Cr assays. Increased variability in Cr occurred with increasing Bil concentrations: Bil <100 micromol/L or=400micromol/L or=3-point difference in 78%. When MELD was >or=25 (mJCr as reference; mean, 30.5 points), MELD variation was greatest: mean, 28 (MELD cJCr), 27.5 (MELD ECr), and 28.4 (MELD JCr) (P < 0.001). In conclusion, there is poor agreement among different assays for Cr. As Bil concentration rises, there is greater variability in each creatinine measurements and thus greater variability in MELD scores that, this affect prioritization for liver transplantation.     

Waiting List Removal Rates Among Patients with Chronic and Malignant Liver Diseases

Equitable liver allocation should ensure that nonelective removal rates are fairly distributed among waiting candidates. We compared removal rates for adults entered with nonmalignant (NM) (N = 9379) and hepatocellular cancer (HCC) (N = 2052) diagnoses on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) list between April 30, 2003, and December 31, 2004. Unadjusted removal rates for NM vs. HCC diagnoses were 9.4% vs. 8.7%, 13.5% vs. 16.9% and 19.1% vs. 31.8% at 90, 180 and 365 days, respectively after listing. For NM candidates, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (RR = 1.16), age (RR = 1.03) and metabolic disease diagnoses (RR = 1.66) had higher risks of removal; and PSC (RR = 0.62) and alcoholic cirrhosis (RR = 0.82) had lower risks of removal. For HCC candidates, MELD score at listing (RR = 1.09), AFP (RR = 1.02), maximum tumor size (RR = 1.16) and age at listing (RR = 1.02) had increased risks of removal. The equation 1 - 0.920 exp[0.09369 (MELD at listing - 12.48) + 0.00193 (AFP - 97.4) + 0.1505 (maximum tumor size - 2.59) defined the probability of dropout for HCC candidates within 90 days of listing. We conclude that factors associated with the risk of removal for HCC are different from NM candidates, although MELD score at listing remains the most predictive for both groups. Liver transplant candidates with HCC may be prioritized using a risk score analogous to the MELD score.     

MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes

Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based allocation of deceased donor livers allows exceptions for patients whose score may not reflect their true mortality risk. We hypothesized that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) may differ in exception practices, use of exceptions may be increasing over time, and exception patients may be advantaged relative to other patients. We analyzed longitudinal MELD score, exception and outcome in 88 981 adult liver candidates as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from 2002 to 2010. Proportion of patients receiving an HCC exception was 0-21.4% at the OPO-level and 11.9-18.8% at the region level; proportion receiving an exception for other conditions was 0.0%-13.1% (OPO-level) and 3.7-9.5 (region-level). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceptions rose over time (10.5% in 2002 vs. 15.5% in 2008, HR = 1.09 per year, p<0.001) as did other exceptions (7.0% in 2002 vs. 13.5% in 2008, HR = 1.11, p<0.001). In the most recent era of HCC point assignment (since April 2005), both HCC and other exceptions were associated with decreased risk of waitlist mortality compared to nonexception patients with equivalent listing priority (multinomial logistic regression odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 for HCC, OR = 0.43 for other, p<0.001) and increased odds of transplant (OR = 1.65 for HCC, OR = 1.33 for other, p<0.001). Policy advantages patients with MELD exceptions; differing rates of exceptions by OPO may create, or reflect, geographic inequity.     

Is the corrected-creatinine model for end-stage liver disease a feasible strategy to adjust gender difference in organ allocation for liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system is used for organ allocation in liver transplantation. Female cirrhotic patients have lower glomerular filtration rates (GFR) than males for the same creatinine (Cr) level. Correcting the Cr in females for the same GFR as in males shows that females have lower MELD scores and therefore a lower priority for liver transplantation; however, there has been no outcome data that justifies this modification. METHODS: We investigated 472 cirrhotic patients, comparing the mortality rate between males and females in relation to MELD and corrected-Cr MELD. RESULTS: Compared to females, male patients had a higher MELD (14.5+/-5.5 vs. 13.8+/-5.7) and significantly higher GFR (61.7+/-21.4 vs. 54.7+/-25.6 mlLmin/1.73 m, P=0.0002) because their Cr value was higher (1.4+/-0.4 vs. 1.3+/-0.5 mg/dL, P=0.0002). The corrected-Cr MELD score in females was higher (15.7+/-6.3) compared to the MELD in their original counterpart (P<0.0001) and the males (P=0.060). Female and male patients had a similar 3-month mortality rate (6.7% vs. 6.3%) and MELD (21.9+/-8.6 vs. 21.7+/-8.9) among deceased patients. At 6 months, female patients tended to have a lower mortality (12.5% vs. 14.7%) and a lower MELD (18.9+/-7.7 vs. 19.4+/-8.5) in deceased patients. However, at 9 and 12 months, females had a consistently higher mortality (25% vs. 21.2% and 37.5% vs. 31.3%, respectively) but lower MELD scores than males by 0.3-1 point. CONCLUSIONS: Using corrected-Cr MELD, which would prioritize female patients for liver transplantation, may only be justified in predicting intermediate-term (9- and 12-month), but not short-term (3- and 6-month) mortality.     

Renal insufficiency after liver transplantation in the MELD era compared to the pre-MELD era

Abstract:  Because the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) system for liver allocation gives priority to patients with a higher creatinine, and because pre-transplant renal function is one determinant of post-transplant renal function, this study compares the burden of renal insufficiency in the pre-MELD and MELD eras. Two hundred and elven patients, at our institution, transplanted in the pre-MELD era, were compared to 143 in the MELD era. The GFR (mL/min/1.73 m²) was significantly higher in the MELD cohort than the pre-MELD cohort at time of transplant, discharge, and 12 months post-transplant (95.5 vs. 85.3, p = 0.039; 90.4 vs. 77.4, p = 0.002; 66.8 vs. 60.3, p = 0.026). There was no difference between the two groups in time to renal failure. There was a higher rate of sirolimus use in the MELD era (27% vs. 18%: p = 0.042) and a slightly higher use of kidney–liver transplant in the MELD era (p = 0.056). We did not identify greater renal insufficiency in the MELD era. There was greater renal function in the MELD era at time of transplant, discharge and month 12. Potential explanations include: absence of an increase in renal insufficiency prior to transplant in the MELD era, greater use of renal sparing immunotherapy and growing use of kidney–liver transplant.     

Model for end-stage liver disease score-based allocation of donors for liver transplantation: a spanish multicenter experience

BACKGROUND: Prioritizing the liver transplant waiting list (WL) is subject to great variability. We present the experience of four transplant centers in Andalusia (Southern Spain) with a new consensus model of WL management based on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. METHODS: The initial criteria for local prioritizing were: a) cirrhosis with MELD score > or =24, and b) all hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) admitted to the WL. Fourteen months later new criteria were established: a) cirrhosis with MELD score > or =18, and b) uninodular HCC between 3-5 cm or multinodular HCC (2-3 nodules <3 cm). Access to regional priority was scheduled after three months for patients with cirrhosis or six months for patients with HCC. We analyzed the WL mortality rate, posttransplant survival rate, and overall survival rate over three 14-month periods: A (before implementation of priority criteria), B (initial criteria), and C (current criteria). RESULTS: Priority was given to 36% of recipients in period B and 47% in period C. The WL mortality rate (including removals from WL) was 12.9%, 12.9%, and 10.7% in periods A, B, and C, respectively. One-year graft survival was 79.7%, 72.6%, and 81.2% in the same periods. The overall one-year survival rate for new cases on the WL was 74.9% in period A, 68.6% in period B, and 82.2% in period C. CONCLUSIONS: The allocation system and WL management with the current criteria resulted in lower waiting list mortality without reducing posttransplant survival, leading to better survival for all patients listed.     

Continued Influence of Preoperative Renal Function on Outcome of Orthotopic Liver Transplant (OLTX) in the US: Where Will MELD Lead Us?

Renal function is a component of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD), We queried the 1999-2004 OPTN/UNOS database to determine whether preoperative renal function remained an important determinant of survival in primary deceased donor liver transplant alone patients (DDLTA) or primary combined kidney liver transplant patients (KLTX). We examined preoperative creatinine, renal replacement therapy (RRT), incidence of KLTX, and patient survival in the 34 months before and after introduction of MELD and performed a multivariate Cox regression analysis of time to death. Preoperative renal function is an independent predictor of survival in DDLTA but not in KLTX. When compared to DDLTA with a preoperative serum creatinine of 0-0.99 mg/dL, patients with serum creatinine from 1-1.99 mg/dL, >2.0 mg/dL, those requiring RRT, and those receiving KLTX had a relative risk of death following transplant of 1.11, 1.58, 1.77, and 1.44 respectively. KLTX requiring RRT had better survival than DDLTA requiring RRT. Since introduction of MELD, KLTX, preoperative creatinine, and number of patients requiring preoperative RRT have increased. Despite this, patient survival following orthotopic liver transplant (OLTX) in the 34 months after introduction of MELD is not different than prior to introduction of MELD.     

Lack of Standardization in Exception Points for Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis and Bacterial Cholangitis

For conditions that the Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not accurately predict waitlist mortality, transplant centers may apply to regional review boards for exception points. For patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) suffering from bacterial cholangitis, consensus recommendations published in December 2006 are to grant exception points for recurrent cholangitis with ≥2 episodes of bacteremia or ≥1 episode septic complications. Using data provided by the United Network for Organ Sharing, we evaluated PSC patients who applied for exception points due to bacterial cholangitis from February 27, 2002 to March 14, 2011. Before publication of the recommendations, 66.0% of applications were accepted, compared with 80.1% after (p < 0.001). Focusing on applications after publication of the recommendations, 311 (74.6%) did not meet the recommended criteria, and 250 (80.4%) of these were approved. Of patients with approved applications, those not meeting consensus criteria were more likely to be transplanted, (77.4% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.043), whereas those with denied applications for approved indications were more liked to die/be removed (44.4% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.49). Although data are needed to properly identify those patients at highest risk for waitlist mortality, standardized criteria or a centralized review board should be adopted to ensure consistency in the granting of exception points.     

Small Difference in International Normalized Ratio May Yield a Significant Impact on Prioritizing Patients Listed for Liver Transplantation

Priority for liver transplantation is currently based on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. The aim of our study was to assess in detail the contribution of international normalized ratio (INR) differences for MELD scores because of interlaboratory variability. The samples from 92 cirrhotic patients were measured on different systems combining three coagulometers and three thromboplastin products to determine variations in INR and MELD score. The INR differences among the first four systems varied between 0 and 0.2, resulting in MELD differences of 0 to 2. The MELD scores of 92 patients changed only among 10 possible integers so that normally 2 to 10 patients shared the same MELD value. In some cases, one MELD score difference resulted in a 10 superpositioning on the waiting list. Including one more system (mechanical vs optical) into our investigations achieved a five MELD difference. Supposing an extreme situation where one patient competes with his or her lowest, all the other with their highest possible score (and visa versa), the difference may be even 20 positions, overturning the complete waiting list. In conclusion substantial interlaboratory differences in MELD score have profound clinical consequences.