Sang Hoon Kim, Shin Hwang, C. Ahn, D. Moon, T. Ha, G. Song, D. Jung, G. Park, Ki‐Hun Kim, Y. Yoon, Woo-Hyoung Kang, H. Cho, Minjae Kim, B. Na, Sung-Min Kim, Geunhyeok Yang, Sung‐Gyu Lee
{"title":"韩国基于MELD评分的肝脏分配系统对活体肝移植患者移植前MELD评分没有影响","authors":"Sang Hoon Kim, Shin Hwang, C. Ahn, D. Moon, T. Ha, G. Song, D. Jung, G. Park, Ki‐Hun Kim, Y. Yoon, Woo-Hyoung Kang, H. Cho, Minjae Kim, B. Na, Sung-Min Kim, Geunhyeok Yang, Sung‐Gyu Lee","doi":"10.52604/ALT.11.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score-based allocation system was started in 2016 in Korea. This study aimed to analyze the profiles of adult patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the pre- and post-MELD eras. Methods: This study was a retrospective double-arm analysis using a single-institution LDLT cohort. We compared the LDLT re-cipient profiles by focusing on pretransplant MELD score for 4 years before and after the introduction of the MELD score-based allocation system. Patients without and with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were categorized as groups A and B in the pre-MELD era and groups C and D in the post-MELD era, respectively. Results: The number of patients in groups A, B, C and D was 615, 599, 704, and 713, respectively; and their MELD scores were 19.0±9.4, 11.2±5.6, 17.9±8.5, and 11.6±5.7, respectively. Clinical parameters of liver cirrhosis indicate that group A had worse general conditions than group C; and groups B and D had similar general conditions. The comparative analysis between groups A and C revealed the mean and median MELD scores as 19.0±9.4 and 17.9±8.5 (P=0.009), and 16 and 15 (P=0.077), respectively. The comparative analysis","PeriodicalId":383785,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Liver Transplantation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Absence of influence of the Korean MELD score-based liver allocation system on pretransplant MELD score in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation\",\"authors\":\"Sang Hoon Kim, Shin Hwang, C. Ahn, D. Moon, T. Ha, G. Song, D. Jung, G. Park, Ki‐Hun Kim, Y. Yoon, Woo-Hyoung Kang, H. Cho, Minjae Kim, B. Na, Sung-Min Kim, Geunhyeok Yang, Sung‐Gyu Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.52604/ALT.11.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score-based allocation system was started in 2016 in Korea. This study aimed to analyze the profiles of adult patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the pre- and post-MELD eras. Methods: This study was a retrospective double-arm analysis using a single-institution LDLT cohort. We compared the LDLT re-cipient profiles by focusing on pretransplant MELD score for 4 years before and after the introduction of the MELD score-based allocation system. Patients without and with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were categorized as groups A and B in the pre-MELD era and groups C and D in the post-MELD era, respectively. Results: The number of patients in groups A, B, C and D was 615, 599, 704, and 713, respectively; and their MELD scores were 19.0±9.4, 11.2±5.6, 17.9±8.5, and 11.6±5.7, respectively. Clinical parameters of liver cirrhosis indicate that group A had worse general conditions than group C; and groups B and D had similar general conditions. The comparative analysis between groups A and C revealed the mean and median MELD scores as 19.0±9.4 and 17.9±8.5 (P=0.009), and 16 and 15 (P=0.077), respectively. The comparative analysis\",\"PeriodicalId\":383785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Liver Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Liver Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52604/ALT.11.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Liver Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52604/ALT.11.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Absence of influence of the Korean MELD score-based liver allocation system on pretransplant MELD score in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation
Background: Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score-based allocation system was started in 2016 in Korea. This study aimed to analyze the profiles of adult patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the pre- and post-MELD eras. Methods: This study was a retrospective double-arm analysis using a single-institution LDLT cohort. We compared the LDLT re-cipient profiles by focusing on pretransplant MELD score for 4 years before and after the introduction of the MELD score-based allocation system. Patients without and with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were categorized as groups A and B in the pre-MELD era and groups C and D in the post-MELD era, respectively. Results: The number of patients in groups A, B, C and D was 615, 599, 704, and 713, respectively; and their MELD scores were 19.0±9.4, 11.2±5.6, 17.9±8.5, and 11.6±5.7, respectively. Clinical parameters of liver cirrhosis indicate that group A had worse general conditions than group C; and groups B and D had similar general conditions. The comparative analysis between groups A and C revealed the mean and median MELD scores as 19.0±9.4 and 17.9±8.5 (P=0.009), and 16 and 15 (P=0.077), respectively. The comparative analysis