Prediction of survival after liver retransplantation for late graft failure based on preoperative prognostic scores

Human leukocyte antigen crossmatch testing is important for liver retransplantation

Although human leukocyte antigen (HLA) crossmatching is often thought to be unnecessary for liver transplants (LTs), we provide evidence that for retransplants, it is essential. Sera from 139 retransplant patients who had received livers from deceased donors were retrospectively analyzed with single antigen beads on a Luminex platform for HLA antibodies. Each patient received at least 2 transplants and was followed up for at least 6 months from the second LT, which was deemed to have failed if the patient had a third LT or died. Second LT survival was calculated from the date of the second LT to the date of the third LT or death. Our study cohort consisted of 118 adult patients (> or = 18 years old) as well as 21 pediatric patients (<18 years old). Class I HLA antibodies were associated with significantly poorer regraft survival in adults [survival differences of 21.3% (P = 0.046), 22.1% (P = 0.042), and 23.7% (P = 0.033) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively]; however, the presence of these antibodies was not associated with significant survival differences in the pediatric population. A univariate analysis of the effect of class I antibodies on second LT survival in adults showed a hazard ratio of 2.0 (95% confidence interval = 1.0-3.8, P = 0.028). Graft survival in patients with and without HLA antibodies or class II antibodies was similar. Because class I antibodies have a deleterious effect on liver regraft survival, crossmatch testing should be performed before liver retransplantation.

Early liver retransplantation versus late liver retransplantation: analysis of a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (re-OLT) is the only effective therapy for irreversible failure of a liver graft. Early and late graft failure gives way to two different clinical conditions that should be discussed separately. This study was designed to compare early and late re-OLT for patients with poor graft function after primary transplantation at our center and sum up our clinical experience in re-OLT.

METHODS

The clinical data of 31 re-OLTs at our center from January 2004 to February 2007 were analyzed retrospectively, consisting of the first group with 14 cases of early re-OLT and the second group with 17 cases of late re-OLT.

RESULTS

Biliary tract complications were the main indications for early re-OLT (57.1%) and late re-OLT (52.9%). Other common indications were vascular complications in early re-OLT and recurrence of primary diseases in late re-OLT. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to the volume of bleeding during operation, cold ischemia time, operative duration, and perioperative mortality; except for the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Outcome was fatal for 7 patients in early re-OLT and 9 patients in late re-OLT. Two deaths were due to multiple organ failure with 3 deaths due to severe sepsis-related disease in early re-OLT, and 4 deaths were due to severe sepsis-related disease with 3 deaths due to recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in late re-OLT. One and 2-year actuarial survival rates after re-OLT were 55.2% and 36.9%, respectively, for patients in early re-OLT, and 65.1% and 52% respectively, for patients in late re-OLT. No significant differences were found regarding survival rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar clinical results can be achieved in early and late re-OLT. Proper indications and optimal operation timing, adequate preoperative preparation, experienced surgical procedures, and effective perioperative anti-infection strategy contribute to the improvement of overall survival rates of patients after re-OLT.

Hepatitis C and liver transplantation: enhancing outcomes and should patients be retransplanted

Hepatitis C (HCV)-related end-stage liver disease is the most common indication for liver transplantation. Safe expansion of the donor pool with improved rates of deceased donation and more widespread use of living and extended criteria donation are likely to decrease wait list mortality. In addition, improved antiviral treatments and a better understanding of the delicate balance between under- and over-immunosuppression in this population are needed. Finally, when recurrent advanced fibrosis occurs, the criteria for patient selection for retransplantation remain widely debated. This article reviews the literature on these topics and the work being done in each area to maximize outcomes in patients receiving transplants for HCV-related cirrhosis.

Liver retransplantation of patients with hepatitis C infection is associated with acceptable patient and graft survival

Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause of liver transplantation (LT), while liver retransplantation (RT) for HCV is controversial as a result of concerns over poor outcomes. We sought to compare patient and graft survival after RT in patients with and without HCV. We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing RT at our center between February 1998 and April 2004. Indications for RT, HCV status, patient, and donor characteristics, laboratory values, and hospitalization status at RT were collected. A total of 108 patients (48 HCV and 60 non-HCV) underwent RT during the study period, with mean post-RT follow-up of 1,096 days (range, 0-2,888 days). Grafts from donors aged>60 years were used less frequently in HCV patients at RT (6%) compared with LT (47%), P<0.001. There was no difference between HCV vs. non-HCV patients in 1- and 3-year patient survival (respectively, 79% vs. 63%, and 71% vs. 63%) and graft survival (respectively, 67% vs. 66%, and 59% vs. 56%). Post-RT mortality and graft failure in HCV patients occurred within the first year in 89% of patients, and 83% were unrelated to HCV recurrence. We conclude that patients should not be excluded from consideration for retransplantation solely on the basis of a diagnosis of HCV.

Retransplantation for hepatitis C: results of a U.S. multicenter retransplant study

It is widely perceived that outcomes are relatively poor following retransplantation (reTX) for recurrent of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Transplant centers debate the utility of offering another liver to these patients. A U.S. study group was formed to retrospectively compare survival after reTX in patients with recurrent HCV (histologically proven) and those transplanted for other indications greater than 90 days after first transplantation, from 1996 to 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups; group 1: HCV reTX (n = 43), group 2: non-HCV reTX (n = 73), and group 3: recurrent HCV but no reTX (n = 156). They were predominantly male, Caucasian, with mean age of 47.2 yr. The commonest indications for non-HCV reTX were chronic rejection (36%), hepatic artery thrombosis (31%) and recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis (17%). Duration of hospitalization, number of intensive care unit (ICU) days, and time interval from listing to transplantation or reTX were similar between reTX groups. The 1-yr and 3-yr survival rates after reTX were also similar for HCV reTX and non-HCV reTX groups (1 yr, 69% vs. 73%; 3 yr, 49% vs. 55%). Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were not predictive of survival from reTX. However, with a MELD score of >30 in the non HCV group, survival was <50%. In the recurrent HCV not undergoing reTX group, 30% were reevaluated for reTX but only 15% were listed for reTX and the 3-yr survival was 47%. The most common reasons for not listing for reTX were recurrent HCV within 6 months (22%), fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (19%), and renal dysfunction (9%). In conclusion, patients retransplanted for recurrent HCV had similar 1-yr and 3-yr survival when compared to patients undergoing reTX for other indications. MELD scores were not predictive of post-reTX survival. Survival was <50% in the non-HCV reTx group with MELD score of >30. Many patients with recurrent HCV are not considered for reTX and die from recurrent disease.

Management of hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation

Recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has been associated with progression to cirrhosis in approximately 20% of patients, 5 years postoperatively. Accelerated decompensation has also been noted when compared with cirrhosis in non-transplant patients. Different treatment strategies are available for recurrent HCV infection post-OLT, but efforts are hindered by the modest response rates, poor tolerability and the risk of rejection as well as graft loss. Anti-HCV immunoglobulin therapy to prevent graft infection with HCV has no established role at present but studies are ongoing. Treatment prior to transplantation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis has been evaluated but the results are too preliminary to make firm recommendations. Prophylactic interferon-based antiviral therapy in the early postoperative period to prevent graft infection was shown to have low response rates and high rates of adverse effects. Treatment of established recurrent HCV infection with combination peginterferon (pegylated interferon) and ribavirin is associated with 10-59% sustained virological response and the predictive value of a positive early virological response has been validated in the post-transplant setting. Improvement in inflammatory activity after viral eradication is well established, but fibrosis regression or stabilisation is less predictable and factors such as rejection and biliary complications may still contribute to graft loss. Most studies have initiated therapy at least 6 months postoperatively in order to optimise patient tolerance and enable the addition of ribavirin. The use of adjuvant agents to treat drug-induced neutropenia and anaemia in this population is evolving and becoming a crucial part of therapy. Determination of optimal doses of both pegylated interferon and ribavirin, and guidance on when to stop treatment, as well as improving tolerability are important steps in achieving higher response rates and minimising drug toxicity.

Early renal replacement therapy in patients with postoperative acute liver failure associated with acute renal failure: effect on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Acute liver failure after major surgical procedures is associated with a high risk of multiple organ failure, including acute renal failure. The optimal time to initiate renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure is controversial because of the poor overall clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

From July 2002 to January 2005, all patients who had no history of liver disease, but developed acute liver failure and subsequent renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy after major surgery, at a surgical intensive care unit, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into early or late dialysis groups based on an arbitrary blood urea nitrogen cut-off level of 80 mg/dL before renal replacement therapy.

RESULTS

Eighty consecutive patients (21 women), with a mean age of 57.8+/-17.0 (SD) years, comprised the study group. The late dialysis group (n=26) had a higher ICU mortality rate (p=0.02) and a lower renal function recovery rate (p=0.02) than the early dialysis group (n=54). Fifty-three (66.3%) patients died during their ICU stay. Independent risk factors for ICU mortality were renal replacement therapy modality (intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous venous-venous hemofiltration; odds ratio [OR]=4.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 14.79; p=0.02), predialysis APACHE II score> 20 (OR=6.52, 95% CI 1.61 to 26.36; p < 0.01), and late dialysis (OR=4.01, 95% CI 1.05 to 15.27; p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate in postoperative patients with acute liver failure-associated acute renal failure was very high. Earlier initiation of renal replacement therapy, based on the predialysis blood urea nitrogen level, with continuous venous-venous hemofiltration might provide a better ICU survival rate.

Trends and experiences in liver retransplantation over 15 years

Compared to primary liver transplantation (LT), the inferior results in the outcome of liver retransplantation (re-LT) continue to be a major challenge. The purpose of this study was to analyze changes in and outcomes of re-LT over a period of 15 years at the Charité Virchow Clinic. Between 1989 and 2003, we performed 1,619 LTs and 157 re-LTs (9.7%) in 1,462 patients. A total of 119 retransplants (50 females, 69 males) were analyzed after consideration of exclusion criteria: recipient age <16 years, second re-LT, primary LT as split-liver or living-related LT, or combination with renal transplantation or Whipple operation. All patients received a whole-size organ. Mean follow-up was 62 months (6 days to 187 months). The main indications for re-LT were initial nonfunction (26.9%), recurrence of viral-induced hepatitis (20.2%), or acute and chronic rejection or thrombosis of the hepatic artery (both 16.8%). The main causes of death were bacterial infections (26.0%) as well as bleeding complications or recurrence of disease (both 16.0%) within the first postoperative month. Overall, 50 out of 119 patients (42%) died after re-LT, 26 patients within the first 3 months and 38 within 1 year. Overall patient survival was 89.9% after 1 month, 78.2% after 1 year, and 67.1% after 5 years. In conclusion, our study showed good clinical results after re-LT. Apart from the changing indications for re-LT with an increasing amount of initial organ failure and hepatic artery thrombosis, the analysis also showed a decreasing amount of complications such as rejection, ischemic type biliary lesions, and recurrence of the disease with unchanged outcome over a period of 15 years.

A systematic review of the performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the setting of liver transplantation

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is now used for allocation in liver transplantation (LT) waiting lists, replacing the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score. However, there is debate as whether it is superior to CTP score to predict mortality in patients with cirrhosis on the LT waiting list and after LT. We reviewed studies comparing the accuracy of MELD vs. CTP score in transplantation settings. We found that in studies of the LT waiting list (12,532 patients with cirrhosis), only 4 of 11 showed MELD to be superior to CTP in predicting short-term (3-month) mortality. In addition, 2 of 3 studies (n = 1,679) evaluating the changes in MELD score (DeltaMELD) showed that DeltaMELD had better prediction for mortality than the baseline MELD score. The impact of MELD on post-LT mortality was assessed in 15 studies (20,456 patients); only 6 (9,522 patients) evaluated the discriminative ability of MELD score using the concordance (c) statistic (the MELD score had always a c-statistic < 0.70). In 11 studies (19,311 patients), high MELD score indicated poor post-LT mortality for cutoff values of 24-40 points. In re-LT patients, 2 of 4 studies evaluated the discriminative ability of MELD score on post-LT mortality. Finally, several studies have shown that the predictive ability of MELD score increases by adding clinical variables (hepatic encephalopathy, ascites) or laboratory (sodium) parameters. On the basis of the current literature, MELD score does not perform better than the CTP score for patients with cirrhosis on the waiting list and cannot predict post-LT mortality.

Is Third-Time Heart Retransplantation Justifiable?

Since repeat heart transplantation traditionally carries higher risk than primary engraftment, we tested the hypothesis that third-time cardiac allograft transplantation is associated with prohibitive mortality and morbidity. The cohort of all third-time cardiac retransplants performed at our institution (n=3) and reported to UNOS from 1987 to 2002 (n=10) was reviewed. The primary endpoints were early and late mortality. Extending the study frame through 2003 captures a total of 5 and 15 third-time heart transplant recipients in UCLA and UNOS databases, respectively. Of the 15 patients undergoing third-time retransplants, preoperatively one was ventricular assist device-dependent, four were on intravenous inotropes, and two had creatinine levels greater than 2.5. Additionally, four were male recipients of female donor hearts and the mean donor ischemic time was 2.6 hours. One patient was diagnosed with acute allograft rejection, 13 with coronary artery vasculopathy/chronic rejection, and one with primary graft failure. At our institution, five patients underwent a third heart transplant. There was no early or hospital mortality. One patient died late from transplant coronary artery disease and another following a fourth allograft. The mortality rate for third-time heart allograft recipients is acceptable. These results are influenced by small sample size, younger age, case selection, and operations at select, high-volume institutions with significant experience.

Diagnosis and management of allograft failure

The article focuses on diagnosis and management of allograft failure in four main categories: (1) ischemic-reperfusion injury (primary nonfunction), (2) technical complications (hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis), (3) chronic rejection, and (4) recurrent disease. It also discusses the complex problems involved in retransplantation for allograft failure.

An outcome comparison between primary liver transplantation and retransplantation based on the pretransplant MELD score

Survival after liver retransplantation (RLTX) is worse than after primary liver transplantation (LTX). We studied retrospectively the 2-year outcome in 44 patients who received RLTX more than 30 days after the primary transplant and in 669 after LTX performed between December 1993 and October 1999, focusing on the relation between the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score immediately pretransplant and post-transplant survival. A 2-year survival for RLTX was inferior to LTX (65.9% vs. 82.9%, P < or = 0.01). This difference was greatest with MELD scores < 25; survival within 2 years remained 11.3-18.2% less for RLTX than for LTX (6 months, P = 0.002; 12 months, P = 0.029, 24 months, P = 0.123). Mortality was mainly related to early vascular complications and sepsis. Two-year survival after RLTX was 81.8% if RLTX occurred < 2 years after LTX and 50% if the interval between LTX and RLTX was > 2 years (P < 0.05). MELD scores were similar in 2-year survivors and nonsurvivors after late RLTX (P = 0.82). Late RLTX is marked by poor survival regardless of the pretransplant MELD score. The MELD-based allocation system may not benefit patients who undergo retransplantation.

A single-center experience of late retransplantation of the liver

Liver retransplantation is considered to carry a higher risk than primary transplantation. However, there are an increasing number of retransplant candidates, especially owing to late graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyze a single-center experience in late liver retransplantation. The overall rate of primary retransplantation was 11.4% (28 re-OLT out of 245 primary OLT); the 14 (52%) who underwent retransplantation at more than 3 months after the first transplant were analyzed by a medical record review. Causes of primary graft failure leading to retransplantation were chronic hepatic artery thombosis in five cases (36%); recurrent HCV cirrhosis in four cases (29%); chronic rejection in two cases (14%); veno-occlusive disease; hepatic vein thrombosis or idiopathic graft failure in one case each (7%). UNOS status at re-OLT was always 2A, all patients were hospitalized; three were intensive care unit bound. ICU and total hospital stay had been 7 +/- 5 and 28 +/- 16 days, respectively. One- and 2-year patient and graft survivals were 84% and 62% and 67% and 67%, respectively. Death occurred in four patients. Two out of the three recovered in ICU at the time of retransplantation, at a median interval of 15 +/- 9 days after retransplantation. The survival rate after late retransplantation is improving, and this option should be considered to be a efficient way to save lives, especially by defining the optimal timing for retransplantation.

Recurrent hepatitis C after retransplantation: factors affecting graft and patient outcome

Retransplantation (re-LT) of patients with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) carries significant morbidity and mortality, negatively impacting on an already scarce donor allograft pool. In this study, we investigated the outcome of allografts and patients after re-LT due to recurrent HCV. Between 1989 and 2002, 47 patients were retransplanted at our institution due to HCV-related graft failure. Clinical HCV recurrence after re-LT was diagnosed when patients had acute liver enzyme elevation correlated with histological recurrence. The independent influence of these variables on survival was tested using Cox regression model. Chi-squared tests were used to examine the influence of individual demographic and pre/perioperative variables on recurrence. Thirty-one (66%) patients died after re-LT (median 2.2 months). Donor age >60, clinical HCV recurrence, and graft failure due to cirrhosis were significant risk factors for mortality (risk ratios of 3.6, 3.3, and 2.4, respectively). Pre-LT MELD score was lower among survivors (22+/- 5 vs. 27+/- 8). Following re-LT, 38 patients had at least one biopsy due to acute liver dysfunction; 19 of them (50%) had recurrence within the first 3 months. High-dose solumedrol was correlated with early recurrence. No association was found between time of recurrence after the first LT and time of recurrence after re-LT. In conclusion, patients with cirrhosis due to recurrent HCV undergoing re-LT have an extremely high mortality rate; older allografts should be avoided in retransplanting these patients. The timing of clinical recurrence after initial liver transplantation is not predictive of the timing of recurrence after re-LT. Patients experiencing early graft failure due to accelerated forms of HCV should not be denied re-LT with the expectation that a similar disease course will occur after re-LT.

Hepatic resection in liver transplant recipients: single center experience and review of the literature

Biliary complications such as ischemic (type) biliary lesions frequently develop following liver transplantation, requiring costly medical and endoscopic treatment. If conservative approaches fail, re-transplantation is most often an inevitable sequel. Because of an increasing donor organ shortage and unfavorable outcomes in hepatic re-transplantation, efforts to prolong graft survival become of particular interest. From a series of 1685 liver transplants, we herein report on three patients who underwent partial hepatic graft resection for (ischemic type) biliary lesions. In all cases, left hepatectomy (Couinaud's segments II, III and IV) was performed without Pringle maneuver or mobilization of the right liver. All patients fully recovered postoperatively, but biliary leakage required surgical revision twice in one patient. At last follow-up, two patients presented alive and well. The other patient with persistent hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), however, demonstrated progression of disease in the right liver remnant and required re-transplantation 13 months after hepatic graft resection. Including our own patients, review of the literature identified 24 adult patients who underwent hepatic graft resection. In conclusion, partial graft hepatectomy can be considered a safe and beneficial procedure in selected liver transplant recipients with anatomical limited biliary injury, thereby, preserving scarce donor organs.

Liver retransplantation for hepatitis C virus recurrence: a survey of liver transplant programs in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver failure is the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT). The number requiring re-LT is expected to grow as patients live long enough to develop graft failure and recurrent disease. Numerous factors have been identified as influencing survival after re-LT. To gain insight into how transplant centers are dealing with this issue and whether published prognostic factors are being used, we conducted a survey of liver transplant centers across the US in late 2003.

METHODS

Surveys consisting of 6 multiple-choice questions were sent to all 96 adult transplant medical directors in the U.S.

RESULTS

Fifty-five (57%) surveys were returned. Of these respondents, 95% would offer re-LT for allograft failure caused by recurrent HCV. A little more than half believed age >60 years and development of allograft cirrhosis after <2 years should exclude a patient from re-LT. However, less than half thought international normalized ratio (INR), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and bilirubin were important factors. After initial LT, 40% of the respondents do not have a protocol for managing HCV recurrence, and 33% responded that they treat only those who develop severe recurrence. In contrast, for re-LT, 67% preemptively treat HCV recurrence. Compared to 5 years ago, 75% believe practice patterns have changed in respect to retransplanting patients with HCV: Most were less likely to offer re-LT because of associated poor long-term survival in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As of late 2003, nearly all surveyed transplant medical directors in the U.S. would offer re-LT to recurrent HCV. Perceived practice patterns for re-LT are at variance with published outcome data.

Anti-IL-2 receptor antibody vs. polyclonal anti-lymphocyte antibody as induction therapy in pediatric transplantation

Current concerns in pediatric transplantation focus on chronic rejection which commonly leads to graft loss, and on long-term maintenance immunosuppression toxicity. Acute rejection has been associated with the subsequent development of chronic rejection. Therefore, induction therapy may provide potential benefits by preventing early acute rejection episodes and allowing delayed administration of calcineurin inhibitors or steroid avoidance. This review of the literature showed that induction therapy can reduce early and recurrent acute rejection episodes after pediatric solid organ transplantation. Whether this might result in better long-term graft survival has still to be confirmed. However, induction therapy has beneficial effects in high-risk recipients and allows steroid avoidance or calcineurin inhibitor minimization. Because they are very well tolerated, anti-IL-2 receptor antibodies are increasingly preferred to rabbit-antithymocyte globulin, but the former have not yet been proven to be more effective or to have less late toxicity than polyclonal agents. Benefits in early outcome and no increase in adverse events lead to recommend the use of IL-2 receptor antagonists as induction therapy after pediatric organ transplantation.

Liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Liver transplantation continues to change as we further define appropriate criteria for allocation and utilization of this scarce resource. The following review highlights new trends and ideas in this evolving field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the model for end-stage renal disease (MELD) scoring system appears to fairly accurately predict mortality while waiting for transplant, the system may be less accurate in predicting outcomes following transplantation. MELD scores offer an additional advantage to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), bringing them to transplant sooner with overall better survivals. However, despite its advantages, the MELD scoring system does not resolve the disparity in the allocation of organs between various organ procurement organizations. Several variables appear to affect patients with hepatitis C undergoing liver transplantation. Selection of appropriate donors appears to be important when transplanting patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as increasing donor age is associated with poorer outcomes. However, the controversy over whether a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) results in poorer outcomes in HCV infected patients remains. Post-transplant medical treatment of HCV may result in both a sustained virologic response and improved histology. With improved overall survival in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant (OLT), increasing attention has been focused on the medical complications following transplant. Identifying specific contributing factors in the development of renal dysfunction and devising strategies to prevent its occurrence are critical to further improvements in outcome following OLT.

SUMMARY

As the gap between patients and available organs remains, continued investigation into appropriate allocation and maximization of outcomes following liver transplant will continue.

Surgical advances in liver and bowel transplantation

Liver and intestinal transplantation are currently the treatments of choice for life-threatening hepatic and gastrointestinal failure. These technologies have evolved through contributions from the fields of immunology, anatomy, physiology, surgery, anesthesiology, critical care, ethics, epidemiology, and public health. Transplantation now accounts for the treatment of over 5,000 recipients per year who are in a state of organ failure. The available donor population, however, is not increasing to meet the demands of the faster growing recipient population. This discrepancy has led to the rapid development of novel strategies that require critical evaluation to build on the success rates in recent years. This article presents the most salient advances in liver and intestinal transplantation in the last 15 years.

Retransplantation for recurrent hepatitis C in the MELD era: maximizing utility

1. Retransplantation (re-LT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence is controversial. Although re-LT accounts for 10% of all liver transplants (LTs), the number of patients requiring re-LT is expected to grow as primary LT recipients survive long enough to develop graft failure from recurrent disease. 2. Utility, as applied to the medical ethics of transplantation, refers to allocating organs to those individuals who will make the best use of them. The utility function (U) of liver transplantation is represented by the product of outcome (O = 1-year survival with LT) times emergency (E = 3-month mortality without LT), i.e., U = O x E. 3. For primary LT, maximal U is achieved by allocating organs at the highest model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (i.e., "sickest first"). No significant differences exist between HCV and non-HCV diagnoses. 4. For re-LT, maximal utility for HCV and non-HCV diagnoses are achieved at MELD scores of 21 and 24, respectively. Utility starts to decline at MELD scores above 28. 5. The current allocation system (MELD) fails to maximize utility with regard to re-LT.

Preoperative delta-MELD score does not independently predict mortality after liver transplantation

Changes in model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of > or = 5 points over 30 days (delta-MELD) is an independent predictor for death in patients awaiting liver transplantation. The aim of the current study was to determine if a positive change in MELD score occurring over the 30 days immediately prior to liver transplantation was predictive of posttransplant mortality. MELD scores from the day of transplantation and 30 days prior to transplantation were calculated for 1510 UNOS patients and used to compute a delta-MELD score. Multivariate modeling determined predictors of posttransplant mortality. Patients with a preoperative delta-MELD > or = 5 had higher absolute MELD scores at transplant, shorter mean posttransplant survival and higher mortality. However, multivariate analysis showed that none of the excess mortality was attributable to the high delta-MELD score (p = 0.43 for delta-MELD > or = 5) and the majority of the excess risk was attributable to absolute MELD score (p < 0.001) at the time of transplantation. Mortality of patients with rapidly worsening chronic liver disease who undergo transplantation depends substantially on absolute MELD score at the time of transplantation but not the rate of change immediately preceding transplant. Allocation policymakers should consider that a high delta-MELD in the immediate pretransplant period does not indicate greater posttransplant mortality.