The proposed risk-score grading predicted the survival differences extremely well. Estimated survival as determined by the Cox proportional hazards model was similar to that determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Verification and further improvements of the proposed system are awaited by other centers or international collaborative studies.

There is a lack of universally accepted clinical parameters to guide the utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers and it is unclear as to which patients would benefit most from these organs. We reviewed our experience in 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation using DCD allografts from 1993 to 2007. Patient outcomes were analyzed in comparison to a matched cohort of 282 patients who received livers from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Patient survival was similar, but 1-, 5-and 10-year graft survival was significantly lower in DCD (69%, 56%, 44%) versus DBD (82%, 73%, 63%) subjects (p < 0.0001). Primary nonfunction and biliary complications were more common in DCD patients, accounting for 67% of early graft failures. A donor warm ischemia time >20 min, cold ischemia time >8 h and donor age >60 were associated with poorer DCD outcomes. There was a lack of survival benefit in DCD livers utilized in patients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ≤30 or those not on organ-perfusion support, as graft survival was significantly lower compared to DBD patients. However, DCD and DBD subjects transplanted with MELD >30 or on organ-perfusion support had similar graft survival, suggesting a potentially greater benefit of DCD livers in critically ill patients.

The survival rates after intestinal transplantation have cumulatively improved during the past decade. With the management strategies currently under evaluation, intestinal transplant procedures have the potential to become the standard of care for patients with end-stage intestinal failure.

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) was developed to predict short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis. It has since become the standard tool to prioritize patients for liver transplantation. We assessed the value of pretransplant MELD in the prediction of posttransplant survival. We identified adult patients who underwent liver transplantation at our institution during 1991-2002. Among 2,009 recipients, 1,472 met the inclusion criteria. Based on pretransplant MELD scores, recipients were stratified as low risk (Յ15), medium risk (16-25), and high risk (Ͼ25). The primary endpoints were patient and graft survival. Mean posttransplant follow-up was 5.5 years. One-, 5-and 10-year patient survival was 83%, 72%, and 58%, respectively, and graft survival was 76%, 65%, and 53%, respectively. In univariable analysis, patient and donor age, patient sex, MELD score, disease etiology, and retransplantation were associated with posttransplantation patient and graft survival. In multivariable analysis adjusted for year of transplantation, patient age Ͼ65 years, donor age Ͼ50 years, male sex, and retransplantation and pretransplant MELD scores Ͼ25 were associated with poor patient and graft survival. The impact of MELD score Ͼ25 was maximal during the first year posttransplant. In conclusion, older patient and donor age, male sex of recipient, retransplantation, and high pretransplant MELD score are associated with poor posttransplant outcome. Pretransplant MELD scores correlate inversely with posttransplant survival. However, better prognostic models are needed that would provide an overall assessment of transplant benefit relative to the severity of hepatic dysfunction. Liver Transpl 12: 440-447, 2006.

No abstract