TY - JOUR
T1 - Laboratory test variability and model for end-stage liver disease score calculation
T2 - Effect on liver allocation and proposal for adjustment
AU - Ravaioli, Matteo
AU - Masetti, Michele
AU - Ridolfi, Lorenza
AU - Capelli, Maurizio
AU - Grazi, Gian Luca
AU - Venturoli, Nicola
AU - Di Benedetto, Fabrizio
AU - Bianchi, Francesco Bianco
AU - Cavrini, Giulia
AU - Faenza, Stefano
AU - Begliomini, Bruno
AU - Pinna, Antonio Daniele
AU - Gerunda, Giorgio Enrico
AU - Ballardini, Giorgio
PY - 2007/4
Y1 - 2007/4
N2 - BACKGROUND. The use of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to prioritize patients on liver waiting lists must take the bias of different laboratories into account. METHODS. We evaluated the outcome of 418 patients listed during 1 year whose MELD score was computed by two laboratories (lab 1 and lab 2). The two labs had different normality ranges for bilirubin (maximal normal value [Vmax]: 1.1 for lab 1 and 1.2 for lab 2) and creatinine (Vmax: 1.2 for lab 1 and 1.4 for lab 2). The outcome during the waiting time was evaluated by considering the liver transplantations and the dropouts, which included deaths on the list, tumor progression, and patients who were too sick. RESULTS. Although the clinical features of patients were similar between the two laboratories, 36 (13.1%) out of 275 were dropped from the list in lab 1, compared to 5 (3.5%) out of 143 in lab 2 (P
AB - BACKGROUND. The use of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to prioritize patients on liver waiting lists must take the bias of different laboratories into account. METHODS. We evaluated the outcome of 418 patients listed during 1 year whose MELD score was computed by two laboratories (lab 1 and lab 2). The two labs had different normality ranges for bilirubin (maximal normal value [Vmax]: 1.1 for lab 1 and 1.2 for lab 2) and creatinine (Vmax: 1.2 for lab 1 and 1.4 for lab 2). The outcome during the waiting time was evaluated by considering the liver transplantations and the dropouts, which included deaths on the list, tumor progression, and patients who were too sick. RESULTS. Although the clinical features of patients were similar between the two laboratories, 36 (13.1%) out of 275 were dropped from the list in lab 1, compared to 5 (3.5%) out of 143 in lab 2 (P
KW - Allocation
KW - Dropout
KW - Liver transplantation
KW - MELD
KW - Waiting list
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247562229&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247562229&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.tp.0000259251.92398.2a
DO - 10.1097/01.tp.0000259251.92398.2a
M3 - Article
C2 - 17460563
AN - SCOPUS:34247562229
VL - 83
SP - 919
EP - 924
JO - Transplantation
JF - Transplantation
SN - 0041-1337
IS - 7
ER -