Brian T Lee, Nathan T Chen, Tse-Ling Fong, Jennifer L Dodge
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Differential Effects of Ascites and Hepatic Encephalopathy on Waitlist Mortality in Liver Transplantation by MELD 3.0.
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.