Dataset Information

Comparison of APACHE IV with APACHE II, SAPS 3, MELD, MELD-Na, and CTP scores in predicting mortality after liver transplantation.

ABSTRACT: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 include liver transplantation as a diagnostic category. The performance of APACHE IV-liver transplantation (LT) specific predicted mortality, SAPS 3, APACHE II, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-Na, MELD, and CTP scores in predicting in-hospital and 1 year mortality in liver transplant patients was compared using 590 liver transplantations in a single university hospital. In-hospital mortality and 1 year mortality were 2.9% and 4.2%, respectively. The APACHE IV-LT specific predicted mortality showed better performance in predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.91, 95% CI [0.86-0.96]) compared to SAPS 3 (AUC 0.78, 95% CI [0.66-0.90], p = 0.01), MELD-Na (AUC 0.74, 95% CI [0.57-0.86], p = 0.01), and CTP (AUC 0.68, 95% CI [0.54-0.81], p = 0.01). The APACHE IV-LT specific predicted mortality showed better performance in predicting 1 year mortality (AUC 0.83, 95% CI [0.76-0.9]) compared to MELD-Na (AUC 0.67, 95% CI [0.55-0.79], p = 0.04) and CTP (AUC 0.64, 95% CI [0.53-0.75], p = 0.03), and also in all MELD groups and in both living and deceased donor transplantation. The APACHE IV-LT specific predicted mortality showed better performance in predicting in-hospital and 1 year mortality after liver transplantation.

SUBMITTER: Lee H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5589917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundControversy 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.MethodsConsecutive 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.ResultsThe 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 P > 0.05). Youden index cutoffs for 90-d mortality were as follows: MELD, 19; MELD-Na, 22; MELD-GRAIL, 18; and MELD-GRAIL-Na, 17. Variables associated with 90-d mortality on multivariable Cox regression were sodium, bilirubin, creatinine, and international normalized ratio. There were no differences in model discrimination using Harrell's C-index. All models were well calibrated; however, divergence between observed and predicted mortality was noted with scores ≥25.ConclusionThere 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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of APACHE IV with APACHE II, SAPS 3, MELD, MELD-Na, and CTP scores in predicting mortality after liver transplantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets