Author information
1Liver Program, Hoag Digestive Health Institute, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, CA.
2Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
3Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
Background: MELD 3.0 introduces changes to address waitlist disparities for liver transplant (LT) candidates. Ascites and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are important milestones in the natural history of cirrhosis regardless of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We aim to assess the impact of ascites and HE and its interaction with MELD 3.0 on waitlist mortality.
Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients listed for LT in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from 2016 to 2021. The primary outcome was waitlist mortality (death/delisting for too sick to LT). Ascites/HE were classified as moderate ascites without moderate HE (mAscites), moderate HE without moderate ascites (mHE), both moderate ascites/HE (mBoth), and neither. MELD 3.0 scores were categorized as <20, 20-29, 30-39, and ≥40.
Results: Of 39 025 candidates, 29% had mAscites, 3% mHE, and 8% mBoth. One-year waitlist mortality was 30%, 38%, and 47%, respectively, compared with 17% (all P < 0.001) for those with neither. In multivariable Cox regression, the adjusted risk of waitlist mortality associated with mAscites (versus neither) was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-2.00) when the MELD 3.0 score was <20, significantly higher than when the MELD 3.0 score was 20-29 (HR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.54), 30-39 (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35), and ≥40 (HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.91-1.43, interaction P < 0.05 for all). A similar pattern was observed by MELD 3.0 for both moderate ascites/HE.
Conclusions: The presence of moderate ascites alone, or combined with moderate HE, not only increases the risk of waitlist mortality but also has a differential effect by MELD 3.0, especially at lower MELD scores. Earlier strategies addressing this group and improving treatment plans or access to LT regardless of MELD remain needed.