MELD-GRAIL and MELD-GRAIL-Na Are Not Superior to MELD or MELD-Na in Predicting Liver Transplant Waiting List Mortality at a Single-center Level.
Journal
Transplantation direct
ISSN: 2373-8731
Titre abrégé: Transplant Direct
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101651609
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
04
04
2022
received:
09
05
2022
accepted:
10
05
2022
entrez:
16
6
2022
pubmed:
17
6
2022
medline:
17
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Controversy exists regarding the best predictive model of liver transplant waiting list (WL) mortality. Models for end-stage liver disease-glomerular filtration rate assessment in liver disease (MELD-GRAIL) and MELD-GRAIL-Na were recently described to provide better prognostication, particularly in females. We evaluated the performance of these scores compared to MELD and MELD-Na. Consecutive patients with cirrhosis waitlisted for liver transplant from 1998 to 2017 were examined in this single-center study. The primary outcome was 90-d WL mortality. MELD, MELD-Na, MELD-GRAIL, and MELD-GRAIL-Na at the time of WL registration were compared. Model discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and Harrell's C-index after fitting Cox models. Model calibration was examined with Grønnesby and Borgan's modification of the Hosmer-Lemeshow formula and by comparing predicted/observed outcomes across model strata. The study population comprised 1108 patients with a median age of 53.5 (interquartile range 48-59) y and male predominance (74.9%). All models had excellent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the primary outcome (MELD 0.89, MELD-Na 0.91, MELD-GRAIL 0.89, MELD-GRAIL-Na 0.89; all comparisons There were no demonstrable differences in discrimination or calibration of GRAIL-based models compared with MELD or MELD-Na in our cohort. This suggests that GRAIL-based models may not have meaningful improvements in discriminatory ability when applied to other settings.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Controversy exists regarding the best predictive model of liver transplant waiting list (WL) mortality. Models for end-stage liver disease-glomerular filtration rate assessment in liver disease (MELD-GRAIL) and MELD-GRAIL-Na were recently described to provide better prognostication, particularly in females. We evaluated the performance of these scores compared to MELD and MELD-Na.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Consecutive patients with cirrhosis waitlisted for liver transplant from 1998 to 2017 were examined in this single-center study. The primary outcome was 90-d WL mortality. MELD, MELD-Na, MELD-GRAIL, and MELD-GRAIL-Na at the time of WL registration were compared. Model discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and Harrell's C-index after fitting Cox models. Model calibration was examined with Grønnesby and Borgan's modification of the Hosmer-Lemeshow formula and by comparing predicted/observed outcomes across model strata.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The study population comprised 1108 patients with a median age of 53.5 (interquartile range 48-59) y and male predominance (74.9%). All models had excellent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the primary outcome (MELD 0.89, MELD-Na 0.91, MELD-GRAIL 0.89, MELD-GRAIL-Na 0.89; all comparisons
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
There were no demonstrable differences in discrimination or calibration of GRAIL-based models compared with MELD or MELD-Na in our cohort. This suggests that GRAIL-based models may not have meaningful improvements in discriminatory ability when applied to other settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35706607
doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001346
pmc: PMC9191558
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1346Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
Transplantation. 2018 Oct;102(10):1710-1716
pubmed: 29620614
Hepatology. 2020 May;71(5):1766-1774
pubmed: 31523825
Am J Transplant. 2021 Oct;21(10):3305-3311
pubmed: 33870635
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51926
pubmed: 23349678
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15(5):767-775.e3
pubmed: 28013117
Am J Transplant. 2021 Jan;21(1):229-240
pubmed: 32529758
Hepatology. 2017 Mar;65(3):804-812
pubmed: 28012259
Hepatology. 2019 Mar;69(3):1219-1230
pubmed: 30338870
Transplantation. 2019 Oct;103(10):2136-2143
pubmed: 30801510
Transpl Int. 2009 Oct;22(10):970-8
pubmed: 19619170
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jun;43(12):1276-92
pubmed: 27087015
Liver Transpl. 2020 Dec;26(12):1603-1617
pubmed: 32750732
Transplantation. 2019 Jun;103(6):1094-1110
pubmed: 30747857
J Hepatol. 2019 Oct;71(4):707-718
pubmed: 31199941
Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16;130(6):461-70
pubmed: 10075613
Liver Transpl. 2016 Jun;22(6):830-8
pubmed: 27028552
Liver Transpl. 2010 Oct;16(10):1169-77
pubmed: 20879015
Transplantation. 2011 Aug 27;92(4):469-76
pubmed: 21775931
Gastroenterology. 2021 Dec;161(6):1887-1895.e4
pubmed: 34481845
Transplantation. 2015 Jan;99(1):158-63
pubmed: 25050469
Am J Transplant. 2018 Jan;18 Suppl 1:172-253
pubmed: 29292603
Am J Transplant. 2021 Oct;21(10):3296-3304
pubmed: 34174151
Liver Transpl. 2005 Mar;11(3):336-43
pubmed: 15719386
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jan;22(1):119-24
pubmed: 17201891
Sci Rep. 2019 May 16;9(1):7495
pubmed: 31097768
Gastroenterology. 2006 May;130(6):1652-60
pubmed: 16697729
Ann Intern Med. 2009 May 5;150(9):604-12
pubmed: 19414839
Liver Transpl. 2019 Jan;25(1):25-34
pubmed: 30609187
Lifetime Data Anal. 1996;2(4):315-28
pubmed: 9384628
Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6
pubmed: 12512033
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 4;359(10):1018-26
pubmed: 18768945
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):273-281
pubmed: 28586179