Liver transplantation for status 1: The consequences of good intentions
Open Access
- 24 April 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Liver Transplantation
- Vol. 13 (5) , 699-707
- https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21125
Abstract
Status 1 is the listing category reserved for patients awaiting liver transplantation who are at risk of imminent death. This high allocation priority was intended to benefit patients with acute liver failure and children with severe chronic liver failure. However, the status 1 criteria were not well defined. The aims of this study, which used the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for patients wait-listed between February 27, 2002, and September 30, 2003, were to determine the indication and numbers of children and adults at status 1 (including regional variations); examine death rates on the waiting list for children at vs. not at status 1; and examine time to death, transplant, or removal from the waiting list for both pediatric and adult status 1 candidates. During the study period, 40.3% of children and 6.1% of adults were transplanted at status 1. The indication was acute liver failure in 52.1% of adults and 31% of children. Among status 1 transplants, Regional Review Board exceptions were granted for 16.7% of children and 10.1% of adults. Death rates for children listed at status 1 by exception per patient-year at risk were substantially lower (0.51) than those of children with acute liver failure (4.06) or with chronic liver disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥25 (4.63). The percentage of adults who died while on the waiting list within 90 days of listing was more than twice that of children, whereas the percentages transplanted were similar. Patients listed and transplanted at status 1 were a heterogeneous population with an overrepresentation of children with varying degrees of chronic liver disease and other exceptions, and an associated wide variation in waiting list mortality. Recent changes in status 1 criteria provide stricter definitions, particularly for children, including the removal of the “by exception” category, with the intent that all candidates listed at status 1 share a similar mortality risk. Liver Transpl 13:699–707, 2007. © 2007 AASLD.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- National and regional analysis of exceptions to the pediatric end-stage liver disease scoring system (2003-2004)Liver Transplantation, 2005
- Regional Variation and Use of Exception Letters for Cadaveric Liver Allocation in Children with Chronic Liver DiseaseAmerican Journal of Transplantation, 2005
- Selection of pediatric candidates under the PELD systemLiver Transplantation, 2004
- New national liver transplant allocation policy: Is the regional review board process fair?†Liver Transplantation, 2004
- Regionwide sharing for status 1 liver patients - beneficial impact on waiting time and pre- and posttransplant survivalLiver Transplantation, 2004
- MELD score as a predictor of pretransplant and posttransplant survival in OPTN/UNOS status 1 patientsHepatology, 2004
- The pediatric risk of mortality score in infants and children with fulminant liver failure*Pediatric Transplantation, 2003
- Development of a pediatric end-stage liver disease score to predict poor outcome in children awaiting liver transplantation1Transplantation, 2002
- MELD and PELD: Application of survival models to liver allocationLiver Transplantation, 2001
- ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESSThe Lancet, 1974