Marta Tejedor, José María Bellón, Margarita Fernández de la Varga, Peregrina Peralta, Eva Montalvá, Nazia Selzner, Marina Berenguer
{"title":"在不同大洲的两个中心验证 MELD3.0。","authors":"Marta Tejedor, José María Bellón, Margarita Fernández de la Varga, Peregrina Peralta, Eva Montalvá, Nazia Selzner, Marina Berenguer","doi":"10.1097/HC9.0000000000000504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>MELD3.0 has been proposed to stratify patients on the liver transplant waiting list (WL) to reduce the historical disadvantage of women in accessing liver transplant. Our aim was to validate MELD3.0 in 2 unique populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a 2-center retrospective cohort study from Toronto, Canada, and Valencia, Spain, of all adults added to the liver transplant WL between 2015 and 2019. Listing indications whose short-term survival outcome is not adequately captured by the MELD score were excluded. All patients analyzed had a minimum follow-up of 3 months after inclusion in the WL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred nineteen patients were included; 61% were male, with a mean age of 56 years. Mean MELD at inclusion was 18.00 ± 6.88, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium (MELDNa) 19.78 ± 7.00, and MELD3.0 20.25 ± 7.22. AUC to predict 90-day mortality on the WL was 0.879 (95% CI: 0.820, 0.939) for MELD, 0.921 (95% CI: 0.876, 0.967) for MELDNa, and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.888, 0.973) for MELD3.0. MELDNa and MELD3.0 were better predictors than MELD (p = 0.055 and p = 0.024, respectively), but MELD3.0 was not statistically superior to MELDNa (p = 0.144). The same was true when stratified by sex, although the difference between MELD3.0 and MELD was only significant for women (p = 0.032), while no statistical significance was found in either sex when compared with MELDNa. In women, AUC was 0.835 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.926) for MELD, 0.873 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.961) for MELDNa, and 0.886 (95% CI: 0.803, 0.970) for MELD3.0; differences for the comparison between AUC in women versus men for all 3 scores were nonsignificant. Compared to MELD, MELD3.0 was able to reclassify 146 patients (24%), the majority of whom belonged to the MELD 10-19 interval. Compared to MELDNa, it reclassified 68 patients (11%), most of them in the MELDNa 20-29 category.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MELD3.0 has been validated in centers with significant heterogeneity and offers the highest mortality prediction for women on the WL without disadvantaging men. However, in these cohorts, it was not superior to MELDNa.</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of MELD3.0 in 2 centers from different continents.\",\"authors\":\"Marta Tejedor, José María Bellón, Margarita Fernández de la Varga, Peregrina Peralta, Eva Montalvá, Nazia Selzner, Marina Berenguer\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HC9.0000000000000504\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>MELD3.0 has been proposed to stratify patients on the liver transplant waiting list (WL) to reduce the historical disadvantage of women in accessing liver transplant. Our aim was to validate MELD3.0 in 2 unique populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a 2-center retrospective cohort study from Toronto, Canada, and Valencia, Spain, of all adults added to the liver transplant WL between 2015 and 2019. Listing indications whose short-term survival outcome is not adequately captured by the MELD score were excluded. All patients analyzed had a minimum follow-up of 3 months after inclusion in the WL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred nineteen patients were included; 61% were male, with a mean age of 56 years. Mean MELD at inclusion was 18.00 ± 6.88, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium (MELDNa) 19.78 ± 7.00, and MELD3.0 20.25 ± 7.22. AUC to predict 90-day mortality on the WL was 0.879 (95% CI: 0.820, 0.939) for MELD, 0.921 (95% CI: 0.876, 0.967) for MELDNa, and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.888, 0.973) for MELD3.0. MELDNa and MELD3.0 were better predictors than MELD (p = 0.055 and p = 0.024, respectively), but MELD3.0 was not statistically superior to MELDNa (p = 0.144). The same was true when stratified by sex, although the difference between MELD3.0 and MELD was only significant for women (p = 0.032), while no statistical significance was found in either sex when compared with MELDNa. In women, AUC was 0.835 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.926) for MELD, 0.873 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.961) for MELDNa, and 0.886 (95% CI: 0.803, 0.970) for MELD3.0; differences for the comparison between AUC in women versus men for all 3 scores were nonsignificant. Compared to MELD, MELD3.0 was able to reclassify 146 patients (24%), the majority of whom belonged to the MELD 10-19 interval. Compared to MELDNa, it reclassified 68 patients (11%), most of them in the MELDNa 20-29 category.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MELD3.0 has been validated in centers with significant heterogeneity and offers the highest mortality prediction for women on the WL without disadvantaging men. However, in these cohorts, it was not superior to MELDNa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":5,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000504\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000504","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validation of MELD3.0 in 2 centers from different continents.
Background: MELD3.0 has been proposed to stratify patients on the liver transplant waiting list (WL) to reduce the historical disadvantage of women in accessing liver transplant. Our aim was to validate MELD3.0 in 2 unique populations.
Methods: This study is a 2-center retrospective cohort study from Toronto, Canada, and Valencia, Spain, of all adults added to the liver transplant WL between 2015 and 2019. Listing indications whose short-term survival outcome is not adequately captured by the MELD score were excluded. All patients analyzed had a minimum follow-up of 3 months after inclusion in the WL.
Results: Six hundred nineteen patients were included; 61% were male, with a mean age of 56 years. Mean MELD at inclusion was 18.00 ± 6.88, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium (MELDNa) 19.78 ± 7.00, and MELD3.0 20.25 ± 7.22. AUC to predict 90-day mortality on the WL was 0.879 (95% CI: 0.820, 0.939) for MELD, 0.921 (95% CI: 0.876, 0.967) for MELDNa, and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.888, 0.973) for MELD3.0. MELDNa and MELD3.0 were better predictors than MELD (p = 0.055 and p = 0.024, respectively), but MELD3.0 was not statistically superior to MELDNa (p = 0.144). The same was true when stratified by sex, although the difference between MELD3.0 and MELD was only significant for women (p = 0.032), while no statistical significance was found in either sex when compared with MELDNa. In women, AUC was 0.835 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.926) for MELD, 0.873 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.961) for MELDNa, and 0.886 (95% CI: 0.803, 0.970) for MELD3.0; differences for the comparison between AUC in women versus men for all 3 scores were nonsignificant. Compared to MELD, MELD3.0 was able to reclassify 146 patients (24%), the majority of whom belonged to the MELD 10-19 interval. Compared to MELDNa, it reclassified 68 patients (11%), most of them in the MELDNa 20-29 category.
Conclusions: MELD3.0 has been validated in centers with significant heterogeneity and offers the highest mortality prediction for women on the WL without disadvantaging men. However, in these cohorts, it was not superior to MELDNa.
期刊介绍：
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
