S2885 Is MELD 3.0 Better Than MELD and MELD-Na in Predicting Mortality and Development of Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS)?

Introduction: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and MELD-Na are important predictive models in patients receiving transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Higher MELD and MELD-Na scores are associated with increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and higher mortality after TIPS. MELD 3.0 has been the latest addition to further predict overall waitlist mortality and improve equitability in transplant allocation. Studies addressing predictive capability of MELD 3.0 for outcomes after TIPS are limited with variable results. Methods: We included adult patients with cirrhosis who underwent TIPS at OSU between 2000 and 2018. Primary outcomes studied were 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and inpatient encounter for HE at 30-days and 1-year. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0. Results: A total of 227 patients were included. The average MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 of the cohort were 14, 15, and 17 respectively. The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 30-day mortality was 0.76, 0.72, and 0.78 respectively (P > 0.11). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year mortality was 0.71, 0.70, and 0.73 respectively (P > 0.20). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 30-day encounter for HE was 0.62, 0.61, and 0.62 respectively (P > 0.55). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year encounter for HE was 0.68, 0.68, and 0.67 respectively (P > 0.48). Sub-group analysis based on gender (man and woman) also showed no statistically significant difference between the AUCs of MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for 30-day/1-year mortality and 30-day/1-year encounter for HE. Conclusion: No difference is mortality and development of HE was found based on various types of MELD scores i.e., MELD, MELD-Na and MELD 3.0. Our study supports existing data that MELD 3.0 is similar to MELD and MELD-Na in its predictive capabilities of mortality and development of HE post-TIPS.

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001139000.85646.91
Primary Topic
Liver Disease and Transplantation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S2885 Is MELD 3.0 Better Than MELD and MELD-Na in Predicting Mortality and Development of Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS)?

The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Liver Disease and Transplantation
article

S2885 Is MELD 3.0 Better Than MELD and MELD-Na in Predicting Mortality and Development of Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS)?

article en

Abstract

Introduction: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and MELD-Na are important predictive models in patients receiving transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Higher MELD and MELD-Na scores are associated with increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and higher mortality after TIPS. MELD 3.0 has been the latest addition to further predict overall waitlist mortality and improve equitability in transplant allocation. Studies addressing predictive capability of MELD 3.0 for outcomes after TIPS are limited with variable results. Methods: We included adult patients with cirrhosis who underwent TIPS at OSU between 2000 and 2018. Primary outcomes studied were 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and inpatient encounter for HE at 30-days and 1-year. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0. Results: A total of 227 patients were included. The average MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 of the cohort were 14, 15, and 17 respectively. The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 30-day mortality was 0.76, 0.72, and 0.78 respectively (P > 0.11). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year mortality was 0.71, 0.70, and 0.73 respectively (P > 0.20). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 30-day encounter for HE was 0.62, 0.61, and 0.62 respectively (P > 0.55). The AUC for MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year encounter for HE was 0.68, 0.68, and 0.67 respectively (P > 0.48). Sub-group analysis based on gender (man and woman) also showed no statistically significant difference between the AUCs of MELD, MELD-Na, and MELD 3.0 for 30-day/1-year mortality and 30-day/1-year encounter for HE. Conclusion: No difference is mortality and development of HE was found based on various types of MELD scores i.e., MELD, MELD-Na and MELD 3.0. Our study supports existing data that MELD 3.0 is similar to MELD and MELD-Na in its predictive capabilities of mortality and development of HE post-TIPS.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Liver Disease and Transplantation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.