Geographic differences in event rates by model for end-stage liver disease score
- PMID: 16939519
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01508.x
Geographic differences in event rates by model for end-stage liver disease score
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Geographic inequity in access to livers for transplantation.Transplantation. 2011 Feb 27;91(4):479-86. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182066275. Transplantation. 2011. PMID: 21200366 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of MELD on OPTN liver allocation: preliminary results.Clin Transpl. 2002:21-8. Clin Transpl. 2002. PMID: 12971434
-
MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes.JAMA. 2004 Apr 21;291(15):1871-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.15.1871. JAMA. 2004. PMID: 15100206
-
Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD.Am J Transplant. 2004;4 Suppl 9:114-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6135.2004.00403.x. Am J Transplant. 2004. PMID: 15113360 Review.
-
Prioritization for liver transplantation.Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Dec;7(12):659-68. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2010.169. Epub 2010 Nov 2. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010. PMID: 21045793 Review.
Cited by
-
Redesigning Organ Allocation Boundaries for Liver Transplantation in the United States.Proc Int Conf Health Care Syst Eng (2013). 2014;61:15-27. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01848-5_2. Proc Int Conf Health Care Syst Eng (2013). 2014. PMID: 26029745 Free PMC article.
-
The Impact of the Share 35 Policy on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Liver Transplantation for Patients with End Stage Liver Disease in the United States: An Analysis from UNOS Database.Int J Equity Health. 2017 Mar 24;16(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0552-8. Int J Equity Health. 2017. PMID: 28340592 Free PMC article.
-
Moderate ascites identifies patients with low model for end-stage liver disease scores awaiting liver transplantation who have a high mortality risk.Liver Transpl. 2011 Feb;17(2):129-36. doi: 10.1002/lt.22218. Liver Transpl. 2011. PMID: 21280185 Free PMC article.
-
Access to Liver Transplantation and Patient Survival among Asian Populations: Pre-Share 35 vs Post-Share 35.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2017;8(4):173-179. Epub 2017 Nov 1. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2017. PMID: 29321832 Free PMC article.
-
Exception point applications for 15 points: an unintended consequence of the share 15 policy.Liver Transpl. 2012 Nov;18(11):1302-9. doi: 10.1002/lt.23537. Epub 2012 Oct 10. Liver Transpl. 2012. PMID: 22899664 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical