SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

Key Points

  • 1
    Historical perspective of donor allocation to patients with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF).
  • 2
    Predicting prognosis in patients with FHF using the London and Clichy criteria.
  • 3
    Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) is a predictor of mortality in patients with FHF.
  • 4
    Outcomes of adults listed as Status 1 in the United States.
  • 5
    Outcomes of pediatric candidates listed as Status 1 in the United States.
  • 6
    Proposed redefinition for Status 1 in adult and pediatric candidates. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:S17–S22.)

Since the United Network for Organ Sharing was awarded the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network contract in 1987, priority has always been given to those liver transplant candidates having the highest urgency. In 1987, the term “UNOS-stat” was used to identify such candidates who were expected to live less than 24 hours. At this time no distinction was made between adults and pediatric recipients, and the category included patients with both acute and chronic liver disease. This occurred at a time when there was a limited number of liver transplant programs, less than 2,000 patients on the waiting list, and the mean waiting time to receive a deceased donor organ was less than a mean of 125 days. However, the UNOS-stat criteria were poorly defined and, indeed, such patients often had multiorgan failure and/or systemic infection and, in fact, were patients who were often too sick to be transplanted, and lead to poor outcomes. Furthermore, the lack of objective criteria led to generous interpretations of which candidates had a life expectancy of less than 24 hours.

In 1991, the Status 4 category was defined, which was later changed to Status 1. The Status 1 category was defined by patients in the intensive care unit who were judged to have a life expectancy of less than 7 days. The Status 1 category included patients with both acute and chronic liver disease as well as adult and pediatric patients. Overall waiting time determined which Status 1 patients received a donor organ. In 1991, the Status 1 definition suffered from the same problems that plagued the UNOS-stat definition; namely, that severity of illness and probability of dying on the waiting list were not well represented by the ICU location and waiting time criteria.

It was not until 1997 that the definition for Status 1 for adults was redefined to include only those candidates with acute liver failure who were in the intensive care unit with a life expectancy without liver transplantation of less than 7 days. The definition of acute liver failure included patients with acute fulminant hepatitis, defined as onset of portosystemic encephalopathy within 8 weeks of the first liver symptoms, and without a history of preexisting liver disease. The criteria for the diagnosis of acute fulminant hepatitis included the presence of portosystemic encephalopathy (stage 2 or greater), hyperbilirubinemia (serum bilirubin level ≥ 15 mg/dL), and a prolonged international normalized ratio of >2.5 or hypoglycemia (not defined). Other candidates defined for status 1 included recipients who developed primary graft nonfunction (PNF) occurring within 7 days of liver transplantation (not further defined) and patients with hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) diagnosed on ultrasound or angiogram within 7 days of their primary transplant. In addition, patients with acute Wilson's Disease were also included in the Status 1 definition.

In 1998, the first attempt was made at a separate definition for Status 1 criteria for children was introduced. Pediatric candidates <18 years of age could be listed for Status 1 if the patient was located in the intensive care unit (criteria undefined) with acute or chronic liver disease, and experienced 1 of the following complications: gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, refractory ascites, uncontrolled portosystemic encephalopathy, and, by the clinician's assessment, had an estimated life expectancy without liver transplant of less than 7 days. Furthermore, each Status 1 recipient was reviewed by a Regional Review Board to determine the appropriateness of Status 1 listing. These changes set the stage for Regional 1 sharing for Status 1 patients for both adults and children, which commenced in early 1999. Even with the implementation of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) / pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) allocation system in 2002, the Status 1 definition remained unchanged. Figures 1 and 2 show the impact of changing the Status 1 definition and the institution of the use of Regional Review Boards in 1997 on the number of Status 1 deaths on the waiting list, as well as on the number of Status 1 liver transplants performed each year (Figs. 1 and 2).

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Status 1 deaths on the waiting list by year. Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Report, 2002.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Number of Status 1 liver transplants by year. Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Report, 2002.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

Acute liver failure or fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) is a syndrome characterized by an abrupt onset of jaundice and hepatic encephalopathy in the absence of preexisting liver disease. The causes of FHF vary, but all are associated with a high morbidity and mortality, with up to 80% of patients dying from the syndrome without the intervention of orthotopic liver transplantation. With liver transplantation, the course of FHF has been markedly altered, since post–liver transplant survival remains just slightly less than that achieved in patients with chronic liver disease.

Early determination of prognosis and prompt decision-making regarding liver transplantation is important in the management of patients with FHF.1–5 Indeed, 2 prognostic models have been evaluated for their ability to predict mortality and to serve as a guide for listing patients with FHF for liver transplantation. These 2 prognostic indices include the London criteria and the Clichy criteria (Table 1). However, both the London and the Clichy criteria have been found to have a low negative predictive value (less than .60) and thus do not identify a subgroup of patients with a low risk of death. This could result in inappropriate use of liver transplantation in a subgroup of patients with acute fulminant hepatitis who would otherwise recover without transplantation. In a recent study, the London and Clichy criteria were compared to the MELD score in patients presenting with FHF of various etiologies, but excluding patients having FHF related to acetaminophen (FHF-A). The study found that the MELD score appeared to be an excellent predictor of outcome in both adults and children with FHF, with a diagnostic accuracy of 95% and a C-statistic score of 0.96.6 Compared to the London and Clichy prognostic criteria, MELD was associated with the lowest rate of false-negative results (Table 2). The data support the conclusion that the MELD score is the better predictor of mortality in both adults and children with FHF. However, further studies will be needed to confirm these single-center results.

Table 1. Models to Predict Prognosis in Fulminant Hepatic Failure
London Criteria
 INR > 6.5 or any 3 of the following:
  Age < 10 or > 40 years
  Cause—hepatitis, drug
  Duration of jaundice before onset
   Encephalopathy > 7 days
  INR > 3.5
  Bilirubin > 17.5 mg/dL
Clichy Criteria
 Portosystemic encephalopathy
 Factor V < 20% age < 30 years
 <30% age > 30 years
MELD Criteria
 FHF definition
 MELD/ PELD ≥ 30
Table 2. Assessment of Prognosis in Fulminant Hepatic Failure*
ModelPPV%NPV%DA%C-statistic
  • Abbreviations: PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; DA, diagnostic accuracy.

  • *

    Yantorno SET, Trentadue JJ, Ruf AE, et al. Liver Transplantation 2004;10:C36.

London718478.78
Clichy917278.76
MELD > 309110095.96

Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

With the introduction of the new Status 1 criteria in 1997, an analysis was performed of the outcomes of Status 1 patients undergoing liver transplant between November 1999 and March 2002. During this period of time, 836 adult patients (18 years of age or older) were listed as Status 1 for liver transplantation in the United States. Of these Status 1 patients, 733 met the strict definition for United Network for Organ Sharing Status 1. There were 103 patients (12.3%) who did not fulfill the criteria for Status 1 listing, but were granted Status 1 by their Regional Review Board, who scrutinized all urgent listings. Many of these patients had chronic liver disease and experienced a complication of portal hypertension such as refractory ascites, portosystemic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding, and were estimated to be at high risk of dying on the waiting list.

The mean age of the Status 1 cohort was 44.3 years and the majority of patients were Caucasian (66.2%), African-American (14.5%), and Hispanic (12.4%). The mean MELD score of these Status 1 patients was 32.5. Of the patients meeting the United Network for Organ Sharing Status 1 criteria, 312 (42.5%) had acute FHF not related to acetaminophen (FHF-NA), 76 patients (10.3%) had acute FHF-A, 268 patients (36.5%) had acute hepatic failure related to PNF within 7 days of transplant, and 64 patients (8.7%) had HAT occurring within 7 days of the original liver transplant (Table 3). An additional 13 patients had acute FHF related to Wilson's disease. Patients with FHF-NA or FHF-A were younger, more often female, and had significantly higher MELD scores compared to Status 1 patients with PNF or HAT (Table 3).7 Furthermore, estimated 7-day survival on the waiting list was significantly better in patients with PNF and HAT compared to patients with FHF-NA or FHF-A (Fig. 3). In patients with FHF-NA, the MELD score was predictive of mortality (P < .0001) (Fig. 4). However, the MELD score was not predictive of pretransplant mortality for patients with FHF-A, HAT, and PNF. Following liver transplantation, patients with FHF-A had the poorest survival, while the best posttransplant survival was observed in patients undergoing liver transplant for FHF-NA (Fig. 5). Patients having FHF-NA had the greatest benefit, with a 30-day estimated survival with transplantation of 91% and an estimated 30-day survival without liver transplantation of 58% (P < .0001) (Fig. 6). This compares to the patients with PNF, in which the 30-day estimated survival with transplantation was 75% and the 30-day estimated survival without liver transplant was 82% (Fig. 6). Conclusions from this study suggest that there are marked survival differences between the various Status 1 diagnostic groups of adult patients. The data suggests that patients with FHF-NA with high MELD scores should be given the highest priority for organ allocation because of an increased risk of death on the waiting list and their excellent short-term survival following liver transplantation. The data suggest that the criteria for highest urgency in Status 1 category should be redefined. The data also suggest that more objective measures predictive of mortality are needed in patients with PNF and HAT if we are to optimize the use of our donor organ supply.

Table 3. Characteristics of UNOS Status 1 Patients Listed Between November 1999 and March 2002
 FHF (NA) n = 312FHF (A) n = 76PNF n = 268HAT n = 67
  • Abbreviations: FHF (NA), fulminant hepatic failure—nonacetaminophen; FHF (A), fulminant hepatic failure—acetaminophen; PNF, primary nonfunction; HAT, hepatic artery thrombosis.

  • Assessed 30 days after listing.

  • *

    Mean.

Age, year39325048
Listing MELD score36373020
Transplanted %*60325669
Died waiting %*171694
Survived/ improved %*16463325
thumbnail image

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 7-day survival probability in Status 1 patients awaiting liver transplantation by diagnostic category.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 4. Estimated 30-day survival probabilities in Status 1 patients awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation as a function of MELD score according to the diagnosis group. *Reprinted by permission from Kremers WK, van IJperen M, Kim WR, Freeman RB, Harper AM, Kamath PS, Wiesner RH. MELD score as a predictor of pretransplant and posttransplant survival in OPTN/UNOS status 1 patients. Hepatology 2004;39:764–769.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 5. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 7-day post-transplant survival in Status 1 patients by diagnostic groups.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 6. Thirty-day estimated survival for Status 1 patients with FHF-NA and PNF with and without liver transplantation.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

Following the institution of the MELD / PELD allocation system, it became obvious that some regions in the country had an unusually high number of pediatric candidates who were being transplanted at Status 1. The study showed wide regional variations in the percent of pediatric listings at Status 1, ranging from as low as 7% to as high as 75%. The impact of this practice led to increasing difficulty for pediatric candidates with chronic liver disease and who had a relatively high PELD score (i.e., greater than 25) to get transplanted in a timely manner in regions where higher proportions of patients were being transplanted as Status 1. Indeed, between 2002 and 2003, 587 of 1,328 pediatric transplants (44%) were performed for Status 1 recipients. Furthermore, it was found that in the MELD era, 76 of 275 (27.6%) of these Status 1 patients were exceptions to the Status 1 definition, meaning the patient did not meet the defined criteria for Status 1, but were granted status 1 standing by the Regional Review Board. The argument was that these pediatric patients were judged by the clinician to be at high risk of dying on the waiting list before an acceptable donor organ could be found.8 However, in an analysis performed by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), the pediatric Status 1 exceptions had a significantly lower death rate compared to pediatric patients having FHF, PNF, HAT, or those with chronic liver disease having a PELD score of greater than 25 (Fig. 7). Furthermore, these exceptional pediatric patients had very low PELD scores (median of 8) compared to the other Status 1 patients (Fig. 7). On the basis of these findings, changes in criteria for Status 1 designation have been proposed for pediatric and adult candidates.

thumbnail image

Figure 7. Waiting list death rates for pediatric candidates by PELD score (for listings between 2/27/02–9/30/03 and followed through 12/31/03. P = median PELD score.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References
  • 1
    FHF, defined as onset of hepatic encephalopathy within 8 weeks of the 1st symptoms of liver disease. The absence of preexisting liver disease is critical to the diagnosis. One of the 3 criteria below must be met to list an adult patient who must be in the intensive care unit.
    • a
      Ventilator dependence
    • b
      Requiring dialysis or continuous venous-venous hemofiltration
    • c
      International normalized ratio greater than 2.5
  • 2
    PNF of a transplanted liver within 7 days of implantation defined with the following criteria:
    • a
      Alanine aminotransferase greater than 2,000 IU/L, or 1 or both of the following:
      • i
        International normalized ratio greater than 2.5
      • ii
        Acidosis defined as having a pH of less than 7.3 and/or a lactate level of greater than or equal to 2 times normal
  • 3
    Anhepatic state
  • 4
    HAT in a transplanted liver within 7 days of implantation, defined with the same criteria as for PNF above. Patients with HAT not meeting the primary non-function biochemical criteria will be listed with a MELD of 40.
  • 5
    Acute decompensated Wilson's disease.

Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

Pediatric patients listed at 1a or 1b should both be in the hospital intensive care unit. Criteria for 1a status in pediatric patients are as follows:

  • 1
    FHF defined as the onset of hepatic encephalopathy within 8 weeks of the 1st symptoms of liver disease. The absence of preexisting liver disease is critical to the diagnosis. One of 3 criteria below must be met to list a pediatric patient with FHF:
    • a
      Ventilator dependence
    • b
      Requiring dialysis or continuous venous-venous hemofiltration
    • c
      International normalized ratio greater than 2.5
  • 2
    PNF of the transplanted liver in which the diagnosis is made within 7 days of implantation. Additional criteria to be met for this indication include 2 of the following:
    • a
      Alanine aminotransferase greater than or equal to 2,000 IU/L
    • b
      International normalized ratio greater than 2.5 or a total bilirubin greater than or equal to 10 mg/dL. All laboratory values must be from the same blood draw within 24 hours in the 7 days following the transplant.
  • 3
    Diagnosis of HAT in a transplanted liver within 14 days of implantation.
  • 4
    Acute decompensated Wilson's disease.

Criteria for status 1b for pediatric patients include the following:

  • 1
    A patient with chronic liver disease in the intensive care unit with 1 of the following criteria:
    • a
      On mechanical ventilator
    • b
      Having a calculated PELD score of greater than 25 or a calculated MELD score of greater than 25 for adolescents (12-17 years of age) and gastrointestinal bleeding requiring at least 30 cc/kg of red blood cell replacement within the previous 24 hours.
    • c
      Having a calculated PELD score of greater than 25 or a calculated MELD score of greater than 25 for adolescent candidates (12-17 years of age) and renal failure or renal insufficiency defined as requiring dialysis or continuous venous-venous hemofiltration.
    • d
      Have a calculated PELD score of greater than 25 or a calculated MELD score greater than 25 for adolescent (12-17 years of age) and a Glasgow Como score of less than 10.
    • e
      Patient with urea cycle defect or Crigler-Najjar disease type 1 may be listed as Status 1b.
    • f
      Pediatric liver candidates with hepatoblastoma may be listed as 1b.

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References

Liver allocation has evolved since the inception of the United Network for Organ Sharing program in 1987. Indeed, patients with FHF, PNF, or HAT have now been shown to have a higher probability of dying on the waiting list as compared to patients with chronic liver disease, and thus, should be given priority over such patients. In adults, patients with FHF have the highest probability of dying on the list and have the best outcome when liver transplant is performed expeditiously. On the other hand, patients developing HAT and PNF are less at risk for dying on the waiting list, and have less favorable outcomes after liver transplantation. Indeed, better criteria will be needed to define patients within the PNF and HAT group who are indeed at the highest risk of dying while waiting for transplantation. Their rate of death on the waiting list needs to be compared to patients with FHF.

In the pediatric population, the major problem has been the large number of exceptional cases that have been granted by the Review Board. Current data indicate that the risk of death is significantly less for such exceptional patients at Status 1, and therefore, stricter definitions will be needed so that pediatric Status 1 patients with acute liver failure, PNF, or HAT are not put at a disadvantage. In addition, it has shown that pediatric patients with Status 1 chronic liver disease having a PELD score of greater than 25 also have a high mortality risk and, therefore, should be given higher priority. The current recommendation is to include patients with acute liver failure, PNF, or HAT in a Status 1a category that would take priority over patients listed as Status 1b, and would include patients with chronic liver disease. The elimination of Status 1 by exception is being considered.

These proposed changes for Status 1 recipients should have a positive impact, better prioritizing patients within the Status 1 category based on probability of dying while waiting for a deceased donor organ. In addition, recent proposals to have a national review board with a more uniform approach to the interpretation of the definitions of Status1 might be helpful. Further data will be collected if and when these proposed changes to Status 1 definition are approved.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation in Patients with FHF
  4. Outcomes of Adult Status 1 Patients in the United States
  5. Outcomes of Pediatric Status 1 Patients in the United States
  6. Proposed Adult Criteria for Status 1a
  7. Proposed Pediatric Definitions for Status 1a and 1b
  8. Summary
  9. References
  • 1
    O'Grady JG, Alexander GJ, Hayllar KM, Williams R. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. Gastroenterology 1989; 97: 439445.
  • 2
    Obaid Shakil A, Kramer D, Mazariegos GV, Fung JJ, Rakela J. Acute liver failure: clinical features, outcome, analysis, and applicability of prognostic criteria. Liver Transpl 2000; 6: 163169.
  • 3
    Bernuau J, Samuel D, Durand F. Criteria for emerging liver transplantation in patients with acute viral hepatis and factor V below 502 of normal: a prospective study. Hepatology 1991; 14: 49A.
  • 4
    Riordan SM, Williams R. Use and validation of selection criteria for liver transplantation in acute liver failure. Liver Transpl 2000; 6: 170173.
  • 5
    Pauwels A, Mostefa-Kara N, Florent C, Georges Levy V. Emergency liver transplant for acute liver failure: evaluation of London and Clichy criteria. J Hepatol 1993; 17: 124127.
  • 6
    Yantorno SET, Trentadue JJ, Ruf AE, et al. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD): a useful tool to access prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: C36.
  • 7
    Kremers WK, van Ijperen M, Kim WR, Freeman RB, Harper AM, Kamath PS, Wiesner RW. MELD score as a predictor of pre-and posttransplant survival in UNOS status 1 patients. Hepatology 2004; 39: 764769.
  • 8
    McDiarmid, SV, Harper AM. Are too many pediatric liver recipients transplanted at status 1? Am J Transplant 2004; 4( Suppl 8).