Is Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 Better Than Model for End-stage Liver Disease? Evaluating the Association of Liver Disease Severity Scores With Perioperative Complications in Liver Transplant Recipients.

IF 0.8
Micaella R Zubkov, Hunter B Moore, Maria Baimas-George, Susana Arrigain, Rocio Lopez, Deena Brosi, Kristen Brown, Ivan E Rodriguez, Trevor L Nydam, James J Pomposelli, Elizabeth A Pomfret, Jesse D Schold
{"title":"Is Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 Better Than Model for End-stage Liver Disease? Evaluating the Association of Liver Disease Severity Scores With Perioperative Complications in Liver Transplant Recipients.","authors":"Micaella R Zubkov, Hunter B Moore, Maria Baimas-George, Susana Arrigain, Rocio Lopez, Deena Brosi, Kristen Brown, Ivan E Rodriguez, Trevor L Nydam, James J Pomposelli, Elizabeth A Pomfret, Jesse D Schold","doi":"10.1016/j.transproceed.2025.06.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sequential adaptations to Child-Pugh (CP) and MELD have improved prediction of waitlist mortality in liver transplant (LT). Despite its widespread use as a prognosticator, the association between the MELD score and perioperative adverse events during LT has yet to be evaluated. this study seeks to evaluate whether advances in MELD score calculations correspondingly improve predictions for massive transfusion (MT) and renal failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients undergoing LT at a tertiary institution between 2015 and 2023 were enrolled. MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and CP were calculated at time of LT. Massive transfusion (MT) was >6 units of red blood cells before hepatic artery ligation. Renal failure (RF) was defined as requiring dialysis on postoperative-day one. Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curves (AUC) was estimated for each score and outcome and compared using the DeLong method. Score performance was evaluated using receiver operator curves (ROC) with a high performing assay considered as an area under the curve (AUC) >0.800.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total 265 patients were included; 20 (7.6%) received MT, 31 (11.8%) had RF. For MT, scores performed similarly (CP 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]; MELD 0.69 [0.59, 0.80]; MELD-Na 0.71 [0.61, 0.81]; MELD 3.0 0.69 [0.59, 0.80]). For RF all MELD scores outperformed CP, and MELD-Na outperformed MELD 3.0 (0.58 [0.48, 0.68], 0.66 [0.55,0.77], 0.67 [0.56, 0.78], and 0.65 [0.53, 0.77]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MELD 3.0 did not outperform its predecessors. MELD-Na may still have a role in assessment of perioperative complications in LT recipients as well as patients with end-stage liver disease undergoing nontransplant operations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94258,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation proceedings","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2025.06.022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sequential adaptations to Child-Pugh (CP) and MELD have improved prediction of waitlist mortality in liver transplant (LT). Despite its widespread use as a prognosticator, the association between the MELD score and perioperative adverse events during LT has yet to be evaluated. this study seeks to evaluate whether advances in MELD score calculations correspondingly improve predictions for massive transfusion (MT) and renal failure.

Methods: Adult patients undergoing LT at a tertiary institution between 2015 and 2023 were enrolled. MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and CP were calculated at time of LT. Massive transfusion (MT) was >6 units of red blood cells before hepatic artery ligation. Renal failure (RF) was defined as requiring dialysis on postoperative-day one. Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curves (AUC) was estimated for each score and outcome and compared using the DeLong method. Score performance was evaluated using receiver operator curves (ROC) with a high performing assay considered as an area under the curve (AUC) >0.800.

Results: Total 265 patients were included; 20 (7.6%) received MT, 31 (11.8%) had RF. For MT, scores performed similarly (CP 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]; MELD 0.69 [0.59, 0.80]; MELD-Na 0.71 [0.61, 0.81]; MELD 3.0 0.69 [0.59, 0.80]). For RF all MELD scores outperformed CP, and MELD-Na outperformed MELD 3.0 (0.58 [0.48, 0.68], 0.66 [0.55,0.77], 0.67 [0.56, 0.78], and 0.65 [0.53, 0.77]).

Conclusion: MELD 3.0 did not outperform its predecessors. MELD-Na may still have a role in assessment of perioperative complications in LT recipients as well as patients with end-stage liver disease undergoing nontransplant operations.

终末期肝病3.0模型优于终末期肝病模型吗?评估肝移植受者肝脏疾病严重程度评分与围手术期并发症的关系
背景:Child-Pugh (CP)和MELD的序贯适应改善了肝移植(LT)等待名单死亡率的预测。尽管MELD评分被广泛用作预后指标,但其与肝移植围手术期不良事件之间的关系尚未得到评估。本研究旨在评估MELD评分计算的进步是否相应提高了对大量输血(MT)和肾衰竭的预测。方法:纳入2015年至2023年在某高等教育机构接受肝移植的成年患者。计算lt时的MELD、MELD- na、MELD 3.0、CP。肝动脉结扎前大量输血(MT)为6个单位红细胞。肾功能衰竭(RF)定义为术后第一天需要透析。估计每个评分和结果的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC),并使用DeLong方法进行比较。采用受试者操作曲线(ROC)评价评分效果,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.800。结果:共纳入265例患者;20例(7.6%)行MT, 31例(11.8%)行RF。对于MT,得分相似(CP 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]; MELD 0.69 [0.59, 0.80]; MELD- na 0.71 [0.61, 0.81]; MELD 3.0 0.69[0.59, 0.80])。对于RF,所有MELD评分都优于CP, MELD- na评分优于MELD 3.0(0.58[0.48, 0.68], 0.66[0.55,0.77], 0.67[0.56, 0.78]和0.65[0.53,0.77])。结论:MELD 3.0并没有超越其前身。MELD-Na仍可用于评估肝移植受体及接受非移植手术的终末期肝病患者围手术期并发症。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信