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
. 2025 Jul 14.
doi: 10.1007/s00270-025-04116-5. Online ahead of print.

Prognostic Performance of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) Creation

Kenkichi Michimoto  1 , Leonardo Campos  1 , Spencer Cushen  1 , Takeshi Suzuki  1 , Kentaro Yamada  1 , Willscott Naugler  2 , Khashayar Farsad  3
Affiliations

Prognostic Performance of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) Creation

Kenkichi Michimoto et al. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the prognostic performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 3.0 in elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) patients relative to MELD, MELD-Na, Freiburg index of post-TIPS survival, modified TIPS score, Child-Pugh, albumin-bilirubin, and chronic liver failure-consortium acute decompensation scores.

Materials and methods: A total of 342 patients (mean age: 55.5 years; 183 men) with portal hypertensive complications due to cirrhosis who underwent elective TIPS between December 2004 and June 2023 were reviewed. The prognostic performance of each scoring system for mortality at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves to determine the area under the curve (AUC). Optimal cutoff values were determined accordingly. AUCs were compared using a bootstrap approach with 2000 resamples. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors.

Results: MELD 3.0 showed the highest AUC across the follow-up period. Compared to MELD and MELD-Na, MELD 3.0 showed significantly higher AUCs at 30 days (0.71, 0.71, and 0.82), 90 days (0.67, 0.68, and 0.77), 1 year (0.65, 0.69, and 0.77), and 3 years (0.63, 0.64, and 0.71) with corresponding P values of 0.049/0.022, 0.007/0.006, < 0.001/0.002, and 0.003/0.008, respectively. Regression analyses suggested MELD 3.0 as an independent risk factor for mortality, with a cutoff value of ≥ 19 for 30 day mortality (P < 0.001) and ≥ 17 for 90 day, 1 year, and 3 year mortality (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: MELD 3.0 may serve as a reliable prognostic tool compared to other existing scoring systems, acutely and in the longer term for elective TIPS creation.

Level of evidence: Level 3, Retrospective single-center cohort study.

Keywords: Liver transplantation; MELD; Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic Shunt; TIPS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: Author KY has received grants and consulting fees from Kaneka Medical America and GE Healthcare, outside the submitted work. Author KF has received grants from Guerbet, AstraZeneca, W.L. Gore, consulting fees from Baylis Medical, Inquis, and Neuwave, and is founder of and owns equity for Auxetics, Inc, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. The local institutional review board approved this single-center retrospective investigation. Informed Consent: This study has obtained IRB approval, and the need for informed consent was waived. Consent for Publication: For this type of study, consent for publication is not required.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):406–60.
    1. Lucatelli P, Krajina A, Loffroy R, Miraglia R, Pieper CC, Franchi-Abella S, et al. CIRSE standards of practice on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2024;47(12):1710–26. - PubMed
    1. Pitton MB, Zimmermann T, Mildenberger P, Weinmann A, Kloeckner R, Düber C, et al. Decision making for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt in refractory ascites and variceal bleeding: MELD, or not MELD, that is the question. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;33(1S Supp1):e214–22. - PubMed
    1. Bettinger D, Schultheiss M, Boettler T, Muljono M, Thimme R, Rössle M. Procedural and shunt-related complications and mortality of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS). Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44(10):1051–61. - PubMed
    1. Allegretti AS, Frenk NE, Li DK, Seethapathy H, Parada XFV, Long J, et al. Evaluation of model performance to predict survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0217442. - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources