Differential Effects of Ascites and Hepatic Encephalopathy on Waitlist Mortality in Liver Transplantation by MELD 3.0.

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION
Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2024-05-15 eCollection Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001625
Brian T Lee, Nathan T Chen, Tse-Ling Fong, Jennifer L Dodge
{"title":"Differential Effects of Ascites and Hepatic Encephalopathy on Waitlist Mortality in Liver Transplantation by MELD 3.0.","authors":"Brian T Lee, Nathan T Chen, Tse-Ling Fong, Jennifer L Dodge","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>MELD 3.0 introduces changes to address waitlist disparities for liver transplant (LT) candidates. Ascites and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are important milestones in the natural history of cirrhosis regardless of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We aim to assess the impact of ascites and HE and its interaction with MELD 3.0 on waitlist mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective study of patients listed for LT in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from 2016 to 2021. The primary outcome was waitlist mortality (death/delisting for too sick to LT). Ascites/HE were classified as moderate ascites without moderate HE (mAscites), moderate HE without moderate ascites (mHE), both moderate ascites/HE (mBoth), and neither. MELD 3.0 scores were categorized as <20, 20-29, 30-39, and ≥40.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 39 025 candidates, 29% had mAscites, 3% mHE, and 8% mBoth. One-year waitlist mortality was 30%, 38%, and 47%, respectively, compared with 17% (all <i>P</i> < 0.001) for those with neither. In multivariable Cox regression, the adjusted risk of waitlist mortality associated with mAscites (versus neither) was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-2.00) when the MELD 3.0 score was <20, significantly higher than when the MELD 3.0 score was 20-29 (HR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.54), 30-39 (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35), and ≥40 (HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.91-1.43, interaction <i>P</i> < 0.05 for all). A similar pattern was observed by MELD 3.0 for both moderate ascites/HE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The presence of moderate ascites alone, or combined with moderate HE, not only increases the risk of waitlist mortality but also has a differential effect by MELD 3.0, especially at lower MELD scores. Earlier strategies addressing this group and improving treatment plans or access to LT regardless of MELD remain needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"10 6","pages":"e1625"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11098197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: MELD 3.0 introduces changes to address waitlist disparities for liver transplant (LT) candidates. Ascites and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are important milestones in the natural history of cirrhosis regardless of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We aim to assess the impact of ascites and HE and its interaction with MELD 3.0 on waitlist mortality.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients listed for LT in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from 2016 to 2021. The primary outcome was waitlist mortality (death/delisting for too sick to LT). Ascites/HE were classified as moderate ascites without moderate HE (mAscites), moderate HE without moderate ascites (mHE), both moderate ascites/HE (mBoth), and neither. MELD 3.0 scores were categorized as <20, 20-29, 30-39, and ≥40.

Results: Of 39 025 candidates, 29% had mAscites, 3% mHE, and 8% mBoth. One-year waitlist mortality was 30%, 38%, and 47%, respectively, compared with 17% (all P < 0.001) for those with neither. In multivariable Cox regression, the adjusted risk of waitlist mortality associated with mAscites (versus neither) was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-2.00) when the MELD 3.0 score was <20, significantly higher than when the MELD 3.0 score was 20-29 (HR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.54), 30-39 (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35), and ≥40 (HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.91-1.43, interaction P < 0.05 for all). A similar pattern was observed by MELD 3.0 for both moderate ascites/HE.

Conclusions: The presence of moderate ascites alone, or combined with moderate HE, not only increases the risk of waitlist mortality but also has a differential effect by MELD 3.0, especially at lower MELD scores. Earlier strategies addressing this group and improving treatment plans or access to LT regardless of MELD remain needed.

根据 MELD 3.0,腹水和肝性脑病对肝移植候诊死亡率的不同影响。
背景:MELD 3.0引入了一些变化,以解决肝移植(LT)候选者等待名单上的差异。无论终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分如何,腹水和肝性脑病(HE)都是肝硬化自然病史中的重要里程碑。我们旨在评估腹水和 HE 及其与 MELD 3.0 的相互作用对候补病例死亡率的影响:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是2016年至2021年器官获取和移植网络数据库中列入LT的患者。主要结果是等待名单死亡率(死亡/因病重无法接受LT而被除名)。腹水/高血压分为无中度高血压的中度腹水(mAscites)、无中度腹水的中度高血压(mHE)、中度腹水/高血压均有(mBoth)和两者均无。MELD 3.0 评分分为 结果:在 39 025 名候选者中,29% 患有中度腹水,3% 患有中度 HE,8% 患有中度 HE。候选者一年的死亡率分别为 30%、38% 和 47%,而候选者一年的死亡率为 17%(均为 P P 结论:单独存在中度腹水或合并中度 HE 不仅会增加候补病例死亡的风险,而且会对 MELD 3.0 产生不同的影响,尤其是在 MELD 评分较低的情况下。无论 MELD 分值如何,仍需尽早制定针对这一群体的策略,并改善治疗计划或 LT 的获取途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信