Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 21 November 2017

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Donor livers not consistently allocated according to medical need

Donor livers are not always distributed according to a patient's need, but may be retained by some organ procurement organizations with smaller waiting lists, find researchers in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

The Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score was implemented in February 2002 to serve as the basis for the liver allocation system used by the United Network for Organ Sharing.

The MELD score is an objective scoring system of medical characteristics predictive of prognosis, with minimal emphasis on waiting time as a priority for transplantation.

However, recommendations to increase and standardize the size of the area of organ allocation have not been implemented.
The distribution of patients' MELD scores listed for transplantation was the same.
Journal of the American Medical Association

Consequently, there is great disparity in the patient populations served by organ procurement organizations (OPOs) across the United States.

In some regions of the United States, an OPO may serve as few as 1.2 million people, whereas in other areas, the population covered by the OPO is nearly 18 million.

The smallest OPO has fewer than 10 patients listed for liver transplantation, whereas the largest has more than 2000.

Dr James Trotter and Michael Osgood of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, conducted a study to determine whether there is a difference in MELD scores for liver transplant recipients receiving transplants in small versus large OPOs.

The researchers reviewed data from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2002 and 2003.

Overall, 4798 transplant recipients had end-stage liver disease and received deceased-donor (DD) livers.

The authors examined MELD score distribution, graft survival, and patient survival for liver transplant recipients in small (less than 100) and large (100 or greater on the waiting list) OPOs.

The researchers found that the distribution of patients' MELD scores listed for transplantation was the same in large and small OPOs: 92% had a MELD score of 18 or less, 7% had a MELD score between 19 and 24, and only 2% of listed patients had a MELD score higher than 24.

They found that the proportion of patients receiving transplants in small OPOs and with a MELD score higher than 24 was significantly lower than that in large OPOs (19% versus 49%).

Patient survival rates at 1 year after transplantation for small OPOs (86%) and large OPOs (87%) were not statistically different, and neither were graft survival rates in small OPOs (80%) and large OPOs (81%).

"In summary, we report that a significantly smaller proportion of adult DD liver transplant recipients in OPOs with small waiting lists receive transplants and have a MELD score higher than 24 compared with recipients in large OPOs.

"The most likely explanation for this disparity is that DD livers are preferentially retained for transplantation in the local OPO, where the number of patients with high MELD scores is numerically smaller than that in large OPOs.

"Although this disparity does not reflect the mandate of the final rule, there may be advantages for selected patients.

"Transplant professionals should be aware of this disparity and its implications as they continue to amend regulations for organ allocation," the authors conclude.

JAMA 2004; 291: 1871-4
21 April 2004

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 21 November 2017 
Prepregnancy obesity and maternal mortality
 21 November 2017 
Preoperative optimization in IBD patients
 21 November 2017 
Cholangiopathy in critically ill patients
 20 November 2017 
Barriers to hepatitis C treatment
 20 November 2017 
Socioeconomic characteristics in diverticular disease
 20 November 2017 
Endoscopic indices of disease activity for Crohn’s
 17 November 2017 
Food elimination diets for treatment of adults with eosinophilic esophagitis
 17 November 2017 
PPI use and cognitive function in women
 17 November 2017 
Predicting microscopic colitis
 16 November 2017 
NAFLD-hepatocellular carcinoma and survival after orthotopic liver transplant
 16 November 2017 
Prepregnancy obesity and severe maternal morbidity
 16 November 2017 
Celiac disease screening in adult first-degree relatives
 15 November 2017 
Breastfeeding and the risk of IBD
 15 November 2017 
Medication nonadherence and health care costs
 15 November 2017 
Predicting recurrence after curative rectal cancer surgery
 14 November 2017 
HBV/HCV coinfection and cirrhosis
 14 November 2017 
Sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery
 14 November 2017 
Eosinophilic gastroenteritis and colitis
 13 November 2017 
GI bleeding in patients taking non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants
 13 November 2017 
Genetic polymorphisms, fatty acids and ulcerative colitis
 13 November 2017 
Flares after immunomodulator withdrawal in Crohn's
 10 November 2017 
Thiopurines vs TNF and lymphoma risk in IBD
 10 November 2017 
Drug monitoring of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in IBD
 10 November 2017 
Treatment decisions for older patients with colorectal cancer
 09 November 2017 
Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy
 09 November 2017 
Irradiated rectal cancer and chemoradiotherapy
 09 November 2017 
Environmental factors and IBD
 08 November 2017 
Prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
 08 November 2017 
Optimal management of postoperative Crohn's disease
 07 November 2017 
Community Screening for Helicobacter pylori
 07 November 2017 
Early readmission in IBD patients
 07 November 2017 
Mesocolic excision for colon cancer
 06 November 2017 
Food elimination diet for children with eosinophilic esophagitis
 06 November 2017 
Biologic agents and obesity in children with IBD
 06 November 2017 
Liver cancer burden despite extensive use of antiviral agents
 03 November 2017 
Statins and mortality in chronic viral hepatitis
 03 November 2017 
Propofol for outpatient colonoscopy
 03 November 2017 
Asthma and IBD development
 02 November 2017 
Diverticulitis and emergency department burden
 02 November 2017 
Sexual functioning in Hep C
 02 November 2017 
Rural residence and risk of IBD
 01 November 2017 
Heartburn relief in adolescents with GERD
 01 November 2017 
Autoimmune pancreatitis in children
 31 October 2017 
Follow-up of positive results on fecal blood tests
 31 October 2017 
Surveillance in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease
 30 October 2017 
Local recurrence after curative rectal cancer surgery
 30 October 2017 
Low-flow ascites pump in refractory cirrhosis
 30 October 2017 
Medical therapy of patients with pediatric-onset IBD
 27 October 2017 
NAFLD in advanced fibrosis in the USA
 27 October 2017 
Early readmission in cirrhosis after bacterial infections
 26 October 2017 
Predicting response to anti-TNF therapy in Crohn's
 26 October 2017 
Conversion to open laparotomy in rectal cancer
 25 October 2017 
Conversion of colonoscopy to sigmoidoscopy
 25 October 2017 
Fecal microbiota transplantation
 25 October 2017 
Rifaximin and survival in hepatic encephalopathy
 24 October 2017 
Eosinophilic esophagitis with swallowed topical corticosteroids
 24 October 2017 
Meta-analysis in nutritiona research
 23 October 2017 
NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma in liver resection
 23 October 2017 
Outcome of hepatic sarcoidosis
 20 October 2017 
Conversion of planned colonoscopy to sigmoidoscopy

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2017 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us