+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score does not predict patient or graft survival in living donor liver transplant recipients



Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score does not predict patient or graft survival in living donor liver transplant recipients



Liver Transplantation 9(7): 737-740



Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a successful procedure for most recipients, outcomes in patients who undergo transplantation as United Network for Organ Sharing status 2A are marginal. There are no published data on living donor liver transplant recipient outcomes relative to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Such information could be useful in living donor liver transplant recipient selection. We retrospectively analyzed all non-fulminant hepatic failure, right hepatic lobe, adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients at our center between August 1997 and March 2002. We calculated MELD scores at the time of LDLT and correlated scores with 1-year patient and graft survival and hospital days during the 90-day post-LDLT period. There were 62 recipients with greater than 6 months of follow-up: 38 men, 24 women; mean age, 47.9 years; 42 white, 1 black, 17 Hispanic, and 2 Asian patients. Twenty-nine patients had hepatitis C virus infection; 4 patients, hepatitis C virus infection and alcoholic liver disease; 4 patients, alcoholic liver disease; 4 patients, cryptogenic cirrhosis; 13 patients, primary sclerosing cholangitis; 5 patients, autoimmune hepatitis; and 3 patients, primary biliary cirrhosis. Mean and median MELD scores were 15.2 and 13, respectively (range, 6 to 40). One-year patient and graft survival were 59 of 62 patients (95%) and 52 of 62 patients (84%), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between median MELD scores of dead versus living patients (15 v 13; P =.15) or patients who underwent retransplantation versus those who did not (16.5 v 13; P =.30). Mean and median hospital days in the 90-day post-LDLT period were 23.7 and 16.0 days, respectively. Living donor liver transplant recipients with a MELD score of 18 or greater had significantly more hospital days compared with recipients with a MELD score less than 18 (35.2 v 19.8 days; P =.01). In conclusion, MELD scores did not predict post-LDLT patient or graft survival at 1 year. However, higher MELD scores (> or =18) were associated with more hospital days during the 3-month post-LDLT period.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 049603013

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12827562

DOI: 10.1053/jlts.2003.50122


Related references

Model for End Stage Liver Disease score does not predict graft survival after living donor liver transplantation. Hepato-Gastroenterology 53(71): 781-782, 2006

Living donor liver transplant versus cadaveric liver transplant survival in relation to model for end-stage liver disease score. Transplantation Proceedings 47(4): 1211-1213, 2015

Preoperative selective desensitization of live donor liver transplant recipients considering the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, model for end-stage liver disease score, and graft liver volume. Journal of Korean Medical Science 29(5): 640-647, 2014

Use of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to predict 1-year survival of Japanese patients with cirrhosis and to determine who will benefit from living donor liver transplantation. Journal of Gastroenterology 43(5): 363-368, 2008

Combination of extended donor criteria and changes in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score predict patient survival and primary dysfunction in liver transplantation: a retrospective analysis. Transplantation 83(5): 588-592, 2007

MELD score does not predict patient or graft survival after living donor liver transplantation. Hepatology 36(4 Part 2): 306A, 2002

Does model for end-stage liver disease score predict the short-term outcome of living donor liver transplantation?. Transplantation Proceedings 42(9): 3620-3623, 2010

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not predict outcomes of hepatitis B-induced acute-on-chronic liver failure in transplant recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 46(10): 3502-3506, 2014

Graft-to-recipient weight ratio threshold adjusted to the model for end-stage liver disease score for living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 22(12): 1643-1648, 2016

Sluggish decline in a post-transplant model for end-stage liver disease score is a predictor of mortality in living donor liver transplantation. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 59(3): 160-166, 2010

Does the model for end-stage liver disease predict post liver transplant graft survival?. Hepatology 38(4 Suppl 1): 370A-371A, 2003

Pretransplant Model for End-stage Liver Disease score has no impact on posttransplant survival in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 44(2): 396-398, 2012

Postoperative resource utilization and survival among liver transplant recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease score ≥ 40: A retrospective cohort study. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 29(4): 185-191, 2015

Has the Model of End Stage Liver Disease (Meld) Improved Racial Disparities in Graft Survival for Liver Transplant Recipients?. Gastroenterology 144(5): S-955, 2013

Does the model for end-stage liver disease score predict transfusion amount, acid-base imbalance, haemodynamic and oxidative abnormalities during living donor liver transplantation?. Journal of International Medical Research 39(5): 1773-1782, 2011