Dataset Information

MELD-GRAIL and MELD-GRAIL-Na Are Not Superior to MELD or MELD-Na in Predicting Liver Transplant Waiting List Mortality at a Single-center Level.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Controversy exists regarding the best predictive model of liver transplant waiting list (WL) mortality. Models for end-stage liver disease-glomerular filtration rate assessment in liver disease (MELD-GRAIL) and MELD-GRAIL-Na were recently described to provide better prognostication, particularly in females. We evaluated the performance of these scores compared to MELD and MELD-Na.

Methods

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis waitlisted for liver transplant from 1998 to 2017 were examined in this single-center study. The primary outcome was 90-d WL mortality. MELD, MELD-Na, MELD-GRAIL, and MELD-GRAIL-Na at the time of WL registration were compared. Model discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and Harrell's C-index after fitting Cox models. Model calibration was examined with Grønnesby and Borgan's modification of the Hosmer-Lemeshow formula and by comparing predicted/observed outcomes across model strata.

Results

The study population comprised 1108 patients with a median age of 53.5 (interquartile range 48-59) y and male predominance (74.9%). All models had excellent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the primary outcome (MELD 0.89, MELD-Na 0.91, MELD-GRAIL 0.89, MELD-GRAIL-Na 0.89; all comparisons P > 0.05). Youden index cutoffs for 90-d mortality were as follows: MELD, 19; MELD-Na, 22; MELD-GRAIL, 18; and MELD-GRAIL-Na, 17. Variables associated with 90-d mortality on multivariable Cox regression were sodium, bilirubin, creatinine, and international normalized ratio. There were no differences in model discrimination using Harrell's C-index. All models were well calibrated; however, divergence between observed and predicted mortality was noted with scores ≥25.

Conclusion

There were no demonstrable differences in discrimination or calibration of GRAIL-based models compared with MELD or MELD-Na in our cohort. This suggests that GRAIL-based models may not have meaningful improvements in discriminatory ability when applied to other settings.

SUBMITTER: Chetwood JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9191558 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

MELD-GRAIL and MELD-GRAIL-Na Are Not Superior to MELD or MELD-Na in Predicting Liver Transplant Waiting List Mortality at a Single-center Level.

Chetwood John D JD Wells Mark G MG Tsoutsman Tatiana T Pulitano Carlo C Crawford Michael D MD Liu Ken K Strasser Simone I SI McCaughan Geoffrey W GW Majumdar Avik A

Transplantation direct 20220610 7

<h4>Background</h4>Controversy exists regarding the best predictive model of liver transplant waiting list (WL) mortality. Models for end-stage liver disease-glomerular filtration rate assessment in liver disease (MELD-GRAIL) and MELD-GRAIL-Na were recently described to provide better prognostication, particularly in females. We evaluated the performance of these scores compared to MELD and MELD-Na.<h4>Methods</h4>Consecutive patients with cirrhosis waitlisted for liver transplant from 1998 to 2 ...[more]

PMID: 35706607

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWith continuing improvements in medical devices and more than a decade since the 2006 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation policy, it is pertinent to assess survival among patients on the heart transplantation waiting list, especially given the recently approved 2018 UNOS allocation policy.ObjectivesTo assess survival outcomes among patients on the heart transplant waiting list during the past 3 decades and to examine the association of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and the 2006 UNOS allocation policy with survival.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cross-sectional used the UNOS database to perform an analysis of 95 323 candidates wait-listed for heart transplantation between January 1, 1987, and December 29, 2017. Candidates for all types of combined transplants were excluded (n = 2087). Patients were followed up from the time of listing to death, transplantation, or removal from the list due to clinical improvement. Competing-risk, Kaplan-Meier, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used.Main outcomes and measuresThe analysis involved an unadjusted and adjusted survival analysis in which the primary outcome was death on the waiting list. Because of changing waiting list preferences and policies during the study period, the intrinsic risk of death for wait-listed candidates was assessed by individually analyzing, comparing, and adjusting for several candidate risk factors.ResultsIn total, 95 323 candidates (72 915 men [76.5%]; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [12.0] years) were studied. In the setting of changes in listing preferences, 1-year survival on the waiting list increased from 34.1% in 1987-1990 to 67.8% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.34%; 95% CI, 0.32%-0.36%; P < .001). The 1-year waiting list survival for candidates with VADs increased from 10.2% in 1996-2000 to 70.0% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.60%; 95% CI, 0.58%-0.62%; P < .001). Similarly, in the setting of changing mechanical circulatory support indications, the 1-year waiting list survival for patients without VADs increased from 53.9% in 1996-2000 to 66.5% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In the decade prior to the 2006 UNOS allocation policy, the 1-year waiting list survival was 51.1%, while in the decade after it was 63.9% (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, each time period after 1987-1990 had a marked decrease in waiting list mortality.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found temporally associated increases in heart transplant waiting list survival for all patient groups (with or without VADs, UNOS status 1 and status 2 candidates, and candidates with poor functional status).

Project description:ImportanceAllocation of deceased donor kidneys is meant to follow a ranked match-run list of eligible candidates, but transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization have full discretion to decline offers for higher-priority candidates and accept them for lower-ranked candidates at their center.ObjectiveTo describe the practice and frequency of transplant centers placing deceased donor kidneys with candidates who are not the highest rank at their center according to the allocation algorithm.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used 2015 to 2019 organ offer data from US transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization, following candidates for transplant events from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were deceased kidney donors with a single match-run and at least 1 kidney transplanted locally and adult, first-time, kidney-only transplant candidates receiving at least 1 offer for a locally transplanted deceased donor kidney. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022 to March 28, 2023.ExposureDemographic and clinical characteristics of donors and recipients.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was kidney transplantation into the highest-priority candidate (defined as transplanted after zero declines for local candidates in the match-run) vs a lower-ranked candidate.ResultsThis study assessed 26 579 organ offers from 3136 donors (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-51] years; 2903 [62%] men) to 4668 recipients. Transplant centers skipped their highest-ranked candidate to place kidneys further down the match-run for 3169 kidneys (68%). These kidneys went to a median (IQR) of the fourth- (third- to eighth-) ranked candidate. Higher kidney donor profile index (KDPI; higher score indicates lower quality) kidneys were less likely to go to the highest-ranked candidate, with 24% of kidneys with KDPI of at least 85% going to the top-ranked candidate vs 44% of KDPI 0% to 20% kidneys. When comparing estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) scores between the skipped candidates and the ultimate recipients, kidneys were placed with recipients with both better and worse EPTS than the skipped candidates, across all KDPI risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of local kidney allocation at isolated transplant centers, we found that centers frequently skipped their highest-priority candidates to place kidneys further down the allocation prioritization list, often citing organ quality concerns but placing kidneys with recipients with both better and worse EPTS with nearly equal frequency. This occurred with limited transparency and highlights the opportunity to improve the matching and offer algorithm to improve allocation efficiency.

Project description:BackgroundUnder the current liver-transplantation policy, donor organs are offered to patients with the highest risk of death.MethodsUsing data derived from all adult candidates for primary liver transplantation who were registered with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in 2005 and 2006, we developed and validated a multivariable survival model to predict mortality at 90 days after registration. The predictor variable was the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score with and without the addition of the serum sodium concentration. The MELD score (on a scale of 6 to 40, with higher values indicating more severe disease) is calculated on the basis of the serum bilirubin and creatinine concentrations and the international normalized ratio for the prothrombin time.ResultsIn 2005, there were 6769 registrants, including 1781 who underwent liver transplantation and 422 who died within 90 days after registration on the waiting list. Both the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration were significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio for death, 1.21 per MELD point and 1.05 per 1-unit decrease in the serum sodium concentration for values between 125 and 140 mmol per liter; P<0.001 for both variables). Furthermore, a significant interaction was found between the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration, indicating that the effect of the serum sodium concentration was greater in patients with a low MELD score. When applied to the data from 2006, when 477 patients died within 3 months after registration on the waiting list, the combination of the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration was considerably higher than the MELD score alone in 32 patients who died (7%). Thus, assignment of priority according to the MELD score combined with the serum sodium concentration might have resulted in transplantation and prevented death.ConclusionsThis population-wide study shows that the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration are important predictors of survival among candidates for liver transplantation.

Dataset Information

MELD-GRAIL and MELD-GRAIL-Na Are Not Superior to MELD or MELD-Na in Predicting Liver Transplant Waiting List Mortality at a Single-center Level.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

MELD-GRAIL and MELD-GRAIL-Na Are Not Superior to MELD or MELD-Na in Predicting Liver Transplant Waiting List Mortality at a Single-center Level.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets