Scholarlink

Background <p>The MELD score, while central to liver transplant prioritization, fails to capture frailty, an important predictor of transplant eligibility and outcomes.</p> Aim <p>To assess the impact of frailty on transplant eligibility and compare its predictive accuracy to MELD-Na.</p> Methods <p>We prospectively studied adults with cirrhosis referred to for transplant evaluation. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) by a multidisciplinary team, with adjudication for disagreements. Laboratory data were collected, MELD scores calculated, and transplant eligibility determined using our institutional framework. Correlation, logistic regression, and ROC analyses compared MELD and CFS in predicting eligibility.</p> Results <p>Among 672 patients evaluated, 76 (11.3%) met the primary endpoint of transplant eligibility. Eligible patients had significantly lower MELD scores, but better frailty status compared with ineligible patients (mean CFS 3.2 vs. 5.8, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CFS correlated moderately with MELD (<i>r</i> = 0.62) and showed superior predictive accuracy for eligibility (AUC 0.84 vs. 0.72).</p> Conclusion <p>Frailty, assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale, outperformed MELD-Na in predicting transplant eligibility and proved relevant even in low-MELD populations. These findings highlight frailty as a practical determinant of eligibility and a step toward standardized, evidence-based equitable selection frameworks.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Frailty and liver transplant eligibility beyond MELD scores: integrating functional status into candidate selection

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月21日

查看全文
  • Maha Elsabaawy,
  • Sameh Afify,
  • Warda Othman,
  • Amr Ragab

摘要

Background

The MELD score, while central to liver transplant prioritization, fails to capture frailty, an important predictor of transplant eligibility and outcomes.

Aim

To assess the impact of frailty on transplant eligibility and compare its predictive accuracy to MELD-Na.

Methods

We prospectively studied adults with cirrhosis referred to for transplant evaluation. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) by a multidisciplinary team, with adjudication for disagreements. Laboratory data were collected, MELD scores calculated, and transplant eligibility determined using our institutional framework. Correlation, logistic regression, and ROC analyses compared MELD and CFS in predicting eligibility.

Results

Among 672 patients evaluated, 76 (11.3%) met the primary endpoint of transplant eligibility. Eligible patients had significantly lower MELD scores, but better frailty status compared with ineligible patients (mean CFS 3.2 vs. 5.8, p < 0.001). CFS correlated moderately with MELD (r = 0.62) and showed superior predictive accuracy for eligibility (AUC 0.84 vs. 0.72).

Conclusion

Frailty, assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale, outperformed MELD-Na in predicting transplant eligibility and proved relevant even in low-MELD populations. These findings highlight frailty as a practical determinant of eligibility and a step toward standardized, evidence-based equitable selection frameworks.