Model for end-stage liver disease-based allocation system for liver transplantation in Argentina: does it work outside the United States?
BACKGROUND
In July 2005, Argentina was the first country after the United States to adopt the MELD system. The purpose of the present study was to analyse the impact of this new system on the adult liver waiting list (WL).


METHODS
Between 2005 and 2009, 1773 adult patients were listed for liver transplantation: 150 emergencies and 1623 electives. Elective patients were categorized using the MELD system. A prospective database was used to analyse mortality and probability to be transplanted (PTBT) on the WL.


RESULTS
The waiting time increased inversely with the MELD score and PTBT positively correlated with MELD score. With scores >/= 18 the PTBT remained over 50%. However, the largest MELD subgroup with <10 points (n = 433) had the lower PTBT (3%). In contrast, patients with T(2) hepatocellular carcinoma benefited excessively with the highest PTBT (84.2%) and the lowest mortality rate (5.4%). The WL mortality increased after MELD adoption (10% vs. 14.8% vs. P < 0.01). Patients with <10 MELD points had >fourfold probability of dying on the WL than PTBT (14.3% vs. 3%; P < 0.0001).


CONCLUSIONS
After MELD implementation, WL mortality increased and most patients who died had a low MELD score. A comprehensive revision of the MELD system must be performed to include cultural and socio-economical variables that could affect each country individually.
McCormack
L
L
Liver Transplant Unit, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. lmccormack@hospitalaleman.com
Gadano
A
A
Lendoire
J
J
Imventarza
O
O
Andriani
O
O
Gil
O
O
Toselli
L
L
Bisigniano
L
L
de Santibañes
E
E
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001118:Argentina; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D054625:Healthcare Disparities; D006801:Humans; D008107:Liver Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D016031:Liver Transplantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000401:mortality; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D018579:Patient Selection; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013997:Time Factors; D014019:Tissue Donors / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D009927:Tissue and Organ Procurement; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States; D014850:Waiting Lists / Q000401:mortality; D055815:Young Adult
World J Surg. 2008 Aug;32(8):1714-21
18553191
Am J Transplant. 2005 Feb;5(2):307-13
15643990
Liver Transpl. 2004 Jan;10(1):7-15
14755772
Arch Surg. 2007 Nov;142(11):1079-85
18025337
Liver Transpl. 2009 Feb;15(2):242-54
19177441
Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Jan;2(1):24-30
16265097
J Hepatol. 2009 Apr;50(4):836-8
19231009
Liver Transpl. 2005 Mar;11(3):336-43
15719386
Transplant Proc. 2006 Nov;38(9):2964-7
17112875
Liver Transpl. 2005 Feb;11(2):167-73
15666382
Liver Transpl. 2000 Jan;6(1):108-12
10648588
Transplant Proc. 1999 Nov;31(7):3061-2
10578395
Liver Transpl. 2007 Jun;13(6):822-8
17539002
Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):464-70
11172350
Patient Saf Surg. 2009 Sep 15;3(1):22
19754971
Liver Transpl. 2006 Jul;12(7):1049-61
16799946
Hepatology. 2000 Apr;31(4):864-71
10733541
Hepatology. 2004 Oct;40(4):787-9
15382164
Transplantation. 2009 Jun 27;87(12):1858-63
19543065
Am J Transplant. 2007 Jun;7(6):1624-8
17511686
HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):352-6
18345318
Am J Transplant. 2009 Feb;9(2):318-26
19120079
HPB (Oxford). 2002;4(3):111-5
18332936
J Hepatol. 2001 Sep;35(3):421-30
11592607