Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Patient selection in an era of donor liver shortage: current US policy

Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology volume 2, pages 24–30 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

In the past, organ allocation in the US was based on anecdotal experience, self-interest and the opinions of single centers, with little support in the way of scientific evidence, mathematical survival modeling or validation. As organ transplantation became more successful, and as disparity between the number of patients on the waiting list and available organs became larger, a more justifiable donor allocation scheme became necessary. The current allocation scheme for donor livers is based on the model for end-stage liver disease/pediatric end-stage liver disease, which was introduced in 2002 by the United Network for Organ Sharing. This new allocation system has improved accuracy for predicting pretransplant mortality. In addition, the number of liver transplantations has risen for almost all etiologic categories, most noticeably for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Fewer patients have been registered on the liver transplant waiting list and fewer have been removed from the list because they have died or become too sick for transplantation. So far, this new allocation system has been a success, but it does have its shortcomings, and even with improvements to the system, the use of the donor organ pool still needs to be optimized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freeman RB et al. (2004) Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD. Am J Transplant 4 (Suppl 9): 114–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lucey MR et al. (1997) Minimal criteria for placement of adults on the liver transplant waiting list: a report of a national conference organized by the American Society of Transplant Physicians and the American Associations for the Study of Liver Diseases. Liver Transpl Surg 3: 628–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. United Network for Organ Sharing (online) Components of the CTP score employed in the previous liver allocation policy [www.unos.org] (accessed July 31, 2002)

  4. Institute of Medicine (1999) Analysis of waiting time. In Committee on Organ Transplantation: Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule, 57–78 Washington DC: National Academy Press

  5. Freeman R and Edward E (2000) Liver transplant waiting time does not correlate with waiting list mortality: implications for liver allocation policy. Liver Transpl 6: 543–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiesner RH et al. (2001) MELD and PELD: Application of survival models in liver allocation. Liver Transpl 7: 567–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Organ procurement and transplantation network-HRSA (1998) Final rule with comment period. Fed Reg 63: 16296–16338

  8. Committee on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Policy (1999) In Organ Procurement and Transplantation: Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule, 82 Washington DC: National Academy Press

  9. Malinchoc M et al. (2000) A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 31: 865–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kamath PS et al. (2001) A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 33: 464–470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanley JA and McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wiesner R et al. (2003) The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology 124: 91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McDiarmid SV et al. (2002) Development of a pediatric end-stage liver disease score to predict poor outcome awaiting liver transplantation. Transplantation 74: 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mazzaferro V et al. (1996) Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 334: 693–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Yao FY et al. (2003) A follow-up analysis of the pattern and predictors of dropout from the waiting list for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for the current organ allocation policy. Liver Transpl 9: 684–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman RB et al. (2004) Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transpl 10: 7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma P et al. (2004) Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the MELD impact. Liver Transpl 10: 36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiesner RH et al. (2004) Liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: impact of the MELD allocation policy. Gastroenterology 127 (Suppl 1): 5261–5267

    Google Scholar 

  19. Magee J et al. (2004) Pediatric transplantation. Am J Transplant 4 (Suppl 9): 54–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Merion RM et al. (2004) The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 4 (Suppl 8): 308

    Google Scholar 

  21. Trotter JF et al. (2004) Specific laboratory methodologies: achieve higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 10: 995–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Olthoff KM et al. (2004) Evolving concepts in liver allocation in the MELD/PELD era: summary report of a national conference. Liver Transpl 10 (Suppl 2): A6–A22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yantorno E et al. (2004) Addition of serum sodium into the MELD score predicts waiting time mortality better than MELD alone: a single center experience. Am J Transplant 4 (Suppl 8): 438

    Google Scholar 

  24. Trotter JF and Osgood MJ (2004) MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: Impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes. JAMA 291: 1971–1874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Feng S et al. (2003) Definition and outcome of transplants using expanded criteria donor livers. Hepatology 38: 158A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative (online) Charter (pdf) [www.natcol.org/collaborative] (accessed 1 August 2004).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Medicine at Mayo Clinic Transplant Center, Rochester, MN, USA

    Russell H Wiesner

Authors
  1. Russell H Wiesner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell H Wiesner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiesner, R. Patient selection in an era of donor liver shortage: current US policy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2, 24–30 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0070

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0070

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing