Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Nov 1;106(11):2122-2136.
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004163. Epub 2022 May 12.

Are MELD and MELDNa Still Reliable Tools to Predict Mortality on the Liver Transplant Waiting List?

Affiliations
Review

Are MELD and MELDNa Still Reliable Tools to Predict Mortality on the Liver Transplant Waiting List?

Marta Tejedor et al. Transplantation. .

Abstract

Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, the scarcity of donor organs and the increasing pool of potential recipients limit access to this life-saving procedure. Allocation should account for medical and ethical factors, ensuring equal access to transplantation regardless of recipient's gender, race, religion, or income. Based on their short-term prognosis prediction, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD sodium (MELDNa) have been widely used to prioritize patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation resulting in a significant decrease in waiting list mortality/removal. Recent concern has been raised regarding the prognostic accuracy of MELD and MELDNa due, in part, to changes in recipients' profile such as body mass index, comorbidities, and general condition, including nutritional status and cause of liver disease, among others. This review aims to provide a comprehensive view of the current state of MELD and MELDNa advantages and limitations and promising alternatives. Finally, it will explore future options to increase the donor pool and improve donor-recipient matching.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Vonkaulla KN, et al. Homotransplantation of the liver in humans. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963;117:659–676.
    1. Kwong AJ, Kim WR, Lake JR, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2019 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant. 2021;21:208–315.
    1. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373:423–431.
    1. Vitale A, Lai Q. Selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer: a difficult balancing between equity, utility, and benefit. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:75.
    1. James C, Carrin G, Savedoff W, et al. Clarifying efficiency-equity tradeoffs through explicit criteria, with a focus on developing countries. Health Care Anal. 2005;13:33–51.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources