GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0 severity scores to address sex disparities for accessing liver transplantation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.

Background: The Gender-Equity Model for liver Allocation corrected by serum sodium (GEMA-Na) and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 (MELD 3.0) could amend sex disparities for accessing liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to assess these inequities in Spain and to compare the performance of GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0. Methods: Nationwide cohort study including adult patients listed for a first elective LT (January 2016-December 2021). The primary outcome was mortality or delisting for sickness within the first 90 days. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were evaluated using multivariate Cox's regression with adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The discrimination of GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0was assessed using Harrell c-statistics (Hc). Findings: The study included 6071 patients (4697 men and 1374 women). Mortality or delisting for clinical deterioration occurred in 286 patients at 90 days (4.7%). Women had reduced access to LT (83.7% vs. 85.9%; p = 0.037) and increased risk of mortality or delisting for sickness at 90 days (adjusted RR = 1.57 [95% CI 1.09-2.28]; p = 0.017). Female sex remained as an independent risk factor when using MELD or MELD-Na but lost its significance in the presence of GEMA-Na or MELD 3.0. Among patients included for reasons other than tumours (n = 3606; 59.4%), GEMA-Na had Hc = 0.753 (95% CI 0.715-0.792), which was higher than MELD 3.0 (Hc = 0.726 [95% CI 0.686-0.767; p = 0.001), showing both models adequate calibration. Interpretation: GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0 might correct sex disparities for accessing LT, but GEMA-Na provides more accurate predictions of waiting list outcomes and could be considered the standard of care for waiting list prioritization. Funding: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Agencia Estatal de Investigación (Spain), and European Union.

European validation of the classification for the anticipated difficulty of liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate risk stratification for the difficulty of liver transplantation (LT) is essential to guide the selection and acceptance of grafts and avoid morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Based on 987 LTs collected from 5 centers, perioperative outcomes were analyzed across the 3 difficulty levels. Each LT was retrospectively scored from 0 to 10. Scores of 0-2, 3-5 and 6-10 were then translated into respective difficulty levels: low, moderate and high. Complications were reported according to the comprehensive complication index (CCI). RESULTS: The difficulty level of LT in 524 (53%), 323 (32%), and 140 (14%) patients was classified as low, moderate and high, respectively. The values of major intraoperative outcomes, such as cold ischemia time (p = 0.04) and operative time (p < 0.0001) increased gradually with statistically significant values among difficulty levels. There was a corresponding increase in CCI (p = 0.04), severe complication rates (p = 0.05) and length of ICU (p = 0.01) and hospital (p = 0.004) stays across the different difficulty levels. CONCLUSION: The LT difficulty classification has been validated.

Improvement of quality of care provided to outpatients with hepatic cirrhosis after an educational intervention.

OBJECTIVE: A set of indicators has been reported to measure the quality of care for cirrhotic patients, and previously published studies report variable adherence rates to these indicators. This study aimed to assess the quality of care provided to cirrhotic outpatients before and after an educational intervention by determining its impact on adherence to quality indicators. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study including 324 cirrhotic patients seen in 2017 and 2019 at a tertiary teaching hospital in Spain. Quality indicators were assessed in five domains: documentation of cirrhosis etiology, disease severity assessment, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, variceal bleeding prophylaxis, and vaccination. After identifying areas for improvement, an educational intervention was implemented. A second evaluation was performed after the intervention to assess changes in adherence rates. RESULTS: Before the intervention, adherence rates were excellent (>90%) for indicators related to variceal bleeding prophylaxis and documentation of cirrhosis etiology, acceptable (60-80%) for HCC screening and disease severity assessment, and poor (<50%) for vaccinations. After the educational intervention, there was a statistically significant improvement in adherence rates for eight indicators related to HCC screening (70-90%), disease severity assessment (90%), variceal bleeding prophylaxis (>90%), and vaccinations (60-90%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a significant improvement in the quality of care provided to cirrhotic outpatients after an educational intervention. The findings highlight the importance of targeted educational interventions to enhance adherence to quality indicators in the management of cirrhosis.