• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

终末期肝病模型:新的肝脏分配政策是否影响等待名单上的死亡率?

Model for end-stage liver disease: did the new liver allocation policy affect waiting list mortality?

作者信息

Austin Mary T, Poulose Benjamin K, Ray Wayne A, Arbogast Patrick G, Feurer Irene D, Pinson C Wright

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

出版信息

Arch Surg. 2007 Nov;142(11):1079-85. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.142.11.1079.

DOI:10.1001/archsurg.142.11.1079
PMID:18025337
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) on waiting list mortality.

DESIGN

Interrupted time series with a nominal inception point of the intervention on February 27, 2002.

SETTING

United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file data from March 1, 1999, to July 30, 2004.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult candidates on the waiting list for liver transplantation in the United States during the study period.

INTERVENTION

Implementation of the MELD policy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Waiting list mortality, waiting time to transplantation, number of new registrants, and posttransplantation survival.

RESULTS

Although no preintervention trend was identified, the policy change was associated with an immediate effect of increasing waiting list mortality by 2.2 deaths per 1000 registrants per month (from approximately 11 to 13 deaths per 1000 registrants per month; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 3.4; P = .001) followed by a postintervention decline in waiting list mortality over time (-0.09 death per 1000 registrants per month; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.03; P <.001). An immediate effect of decreased waiting time was also noted (from approximately 294 to 250 days; -44.4 days; 95% CI, -77.1 to -11.7 days; P <.001), which reached a new, lower postintervention steady state. The intervention had no effect on the number of new registrants listed per month or on 3- and 6-month posttransplantation survival.

CONCLUSION

After an initial increase in waiting list mortality, the implementation of the MELD-based allocation policy was associated with an overall decline in waiting list mortality and time to transplantation.

摘要

目的

研究终末期肝病模型(MELD)对等待名单上患者死亡率的影响。

设计

以2002年2月27日干预措施的名义起始点进行中断时间序列分析。

设置

使用器官共享联合网络标准移植分析与研究文件中1999年3月1日至2004年7月30日的数据。

参与者

研究期间美国所有肝移植等待名单上的成年候选人。

干预措施

实施MELD政策。

主要观察指标

等待名单上的死亡率、移植等待时间、新登记人数以及移植后生存率。

结果

尽管未发现干预前的趋势,但政策变化带来了直接影响,即等待名单上的死亡率立即上升,每1000名登记者每月增加2.2例死亡(从每1000名登记者每月约11例死亡增至13例死亡;95%置信区间[CI],1.1至3.4;P = 0.001),随后干预后等待名单上的死亡率随时间下降(每1000名登记者每月-0.09例死亡;95% CI,-0.16至-0.03;P < 0.001)。还注意到移植等待时间立即缩短(从约294天降至250天;-44.4天;95% CI,-77.1至-11.7天;P < 0.001),并达到了干预后的新的较低稳定状态。该干预措施对每月新登记人数或移植后3个月和6个月的生存率没有影响。

结论

在等待名单上的死亡率最初上升之后,基于MELD的分配政策的实施与等待名单上的死亡率和移植时间的总体下降相关。

相似文献

1
Model for end-stage liver disease: did the new liver allocation policy affect waiting list mortality?终末期肝病模型:新的肝脏分配政策是否影响等待名单上的死亡率?
Arch Surg. 2007 Nov;142(11):1079-85. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.142.11.1079.
2
Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the MELD impact.肝细胞癌的肝移植:终末期肝病模型(MELD)的影响
Liver Transpl. 2004 Jan;10(1):36-41. doi: 10.1002/lt.20012.
3
The UNOS OPTN waiting list: 1988 to 1994. United Network for Organ Sharing. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.器官共享联合网络(UNOS)器官分配等待名单:1988年至1994年。器官获取与移植网络。
Clin Transpl. 1994:69-86.
4
Overview of the MELD score and the UNOS adult liver allocation system.终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分及器官共享联合网络(UNOS)成人肝脏分配系统概述。
Transplant Proc. 2007 Dec;39(10):3169-74. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.04.025.
5
The UNOS OPTN waiting list: 1988-1995.器官共享联合网络(UNOS)等待名单:1988 - 1995年
Clin Transpl. 1995:69-84.
6
Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan.新肝脏分配计划第一年的结果。
Liver Transpl. 2004 Jan;10(1):7-15. doi: 10.1002/lt.20024.
7
The UNOS OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) waiting list: 1988 through November 30, 1992.美国器官共享联合网络(UNOS)器官获取与移植网络等待名单:1988年至1992年11月30日。
Clin Transpl. 1992:61-75.
8
Liver transplant waiting time does not correlate with waiting list mortality: implications for liver allocation policy.肝移植等待时间与等待名单上的死亡率无关:对肝脏分配政策的启示。
Liver Transpl. 2000 Sep;6(5):543-52. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2000.9744.
9
Testing liver allocation in São Paulo, Brazil: the relationship of model for end-stage liver disease implementation with a reduction in waiting-list mortality.巴西圣保罗的肝脏分配测试:终末期肝病模型实施与等待名单死亡率降低之间的关系。
Transplant Proc. 2012 Oct;44(8):2283-5. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.07.045.
10
Analysis of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in a liver transplantation waiting list.肝移植等待名单中终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分分析
Transplant Proc. 2007 Oct;39(8):2511-3. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.07.023.

引用本文的文献

1
The Colorado Heart Failure Acuity Risk Model: A Mortality Model for Waitlisted Cardiac Transplant Patients.科罗拉多心力衰竭急性风险模型:一种针对心脏移植等待名单上患者的死亡率模型。
JACC Adv. 2024 Dec 13;4(1):101449. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101449. eCollection 2025 Jan.
2
MELD is MELD is MELD? Transplant center-level variation in waitlist mortality for candidates with the same biological MELD.MELD 就是 MELD 吗?对于具有相同生物学 MELD 的候选者,移植中心在等待名单死亡率方面存在差异。
Am J Transplant. 2021 Oct;21(10):3305-3311. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16603. Epub 2021 May 15.
3
Impact of recipient functional status on 1-year liver transplant outcomes.
受者功能状态对肝移植1年预后的影响。
World J Transplant. 2019 Nov 20;9(7):145-157. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v9.i7.145.
4
Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Overview and pragmatic proposals.肝移植治疗危重症肝硬化患者:概述与实用建议。
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec 14;24(46):5203-5214. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i46.5203.
5
Predicting Outcomes on the Liver Transplant Waiting List in the United States: Accounting for Large Regional Variation in Organ Availability and Priority Allocation Points.预测美国肝脏移植等待名单上的结果:考虑器官可获得性和优先分配点数的巨大区域差异
Transplantation. 2016 Oct;100(10):2153-9. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001384.
6
[Allocation systems in transplantation medicine: Advantages and disadvantages].[移植医学中的分配系统:优点与缺点]
Internist (Berl). 2016 Jan;57(1):15-24. doi: 10.1007/s00108-015-3805-x.
7
Liver transplantation as a management of hepatocellular carcinoma.肝移植作为肝细胞癌的一种治疗手段。
World J Hepatol. 2015 Jun 8;7(10):1347-54. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i10.1347.
8
Model for end-stage liver disease score and MELD exceptions: 15 years later.终末期肝病模型评分与MELD例外情况:15年后
Hepatol Int. 2015 Jul;9(3):346-54. doi: 10.1007/s12072-015-9631-3. Epub 2015 May 28.
9
Impact of estimated liver volume and liver weight on gender disparity in liver transplantation.估计肝体积和肝重量对肝移植中性别差异的影响。
Liver Transpl. 2013 Jan;19(1):89-95. doi: 10.1002/lt.23553. Epub 2012 Dec 12.
10
Increasing disparity in waitlist mortality rates with increased model for end-stage liver disease scores for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma versus candidates without hepatocellular carcinoma.肝癌患者与非肝癌患者的终末期肝病模型评分增加导致等待名单死亡率差异增大。
Liver Transpl. 2012 Apr;18(4):434-43. doi: 10.1002/lt.23394.