“…These children are still utilizing relatively subjective parameters for organ allocation. Regional variation observed in the mean PELD scores at allocation and the percentage of exception cases show the system is not utilized uniformly across the country (18,19). Although some of the variability observed in mean PELD scores at allocation may be due to regional differences in severity of illness, these data suggest that the frequent use of exceptions plays a role as well.…”
The Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) score was designed to reduce subjectivity in liver allocation and to advantage patients with a higher probability of waiting list mortality. The aims of this study were to determine the impact of PELD implementation for children with chronic liver disease and to assess whether PELD met its goal of standardization of liver allocation for children. This study used data reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry for children with chronic liver disease receiving primary cadaveric liver transplant between January 2000 and December 2001 (pre-PELD) and March 2002 and July 2003 (PELD). PELD reduced the percentage of children transplanted while in an intensive care unit and as status 1. A calculated PELD score was used for allocation in only 52% of recipients. Thirty percent were status 1 at transplant and PELD scores granted by exception were used for allocation in 18% of patients. There was regional variation in PELD score at allocation and use of exception scores with a significant relationship between PELD score and percentage of exception cases. Regional variation suggests that PELD has not resulted in standardization of listing practices in pediatric liver transplantation.
“…These children are still utilizing relatively subjective parameters for organ allocation. Regional variation observed in the mean PELD scores at allocation and the percentage of exception cases show the system is not utilized uniformly across the country (18,19). Although some of the variability observed in mean PELD scores at allocation may be due to regional differences in severity of illness, these data suggest that the frequent use of exceptions plays a role as well.…”
The Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) score was designed to reduce subjectivity in liver allocation and to advantage patients with a higher probability of waiting list mortality. The aims of this study were to determine the impact of PELD implementation for children with chronic liver disease and to assess whether PELD met its goal of standardization of liver allocation for children. This study used data reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry for children with chronic liver disease receiving primary cadaveric liver transplant between January 2000 and December 2001 (pre-PELD) and March 2002 and July 2003 (PELD). PELD reduced the percentage of children transplanted while in an intensive care unit and as status 1. A calculated PELD score was used for allocation in only 52% of recipients. Thirty percent were status 1 at transplant and PELD scores granted by exception were used for allocation in 18% of patients. There was regional variation in PELD score at allocation and use of exception scores with a significant relationship between PELD score and percentage of exception cases. Regional variation suggests that PELD has not resulted in standardization of listing practices in pediatric liver transplantation.
“…MELD score allows prioritizing patients on the waiting list, putting the "sickest first" (Schaffer, 2003). However, we have to take into account that the MELD score does not always adequately reflect disease severity and prognosis (Frost, 2002).…”
Section: Hrqol In Patients With Chronic Liver Disease Is Not Associatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In patients with fulminant hepatic failure, metabolic disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, refractory ascites, hepato pulmonary syndrome etc. MELD does not apply (Schaffer, 2003).…”
Section: Hrqol In Patients With Chronic Liver Disease Is Not Associatmentioning
“…At times, this has led some to call for broader allocation units to make distribution more equitable and not based so tightly on geography. 1,2 This then leads to discussions about increased costs of distributing organs and the potential negative impact on smaller transplant programs. Likewise, some feel that patients should be able to seek out transplant centers that meet their specific needs or desires even if this requires going to a center not near their home or even in a different DSA or region.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.