Assessment of the prognosis of cirrhosis: Child–Pugh versus MELD

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2004.11.015Get rights and content

Section snippets

Basic concepts

The initial version of Child, or Child–Turcotte score [1], included two continuous variables (bilirubin and albumin) and three discrete (quantitative) variables (ascites, encephalopathy and nutritional status) (Table 1). Again, the selection of these five variables as well as the cut-off values for bilirubin and albumin are empirical. The five variables and their respective cut-off values were arranged so as to define three distinct groups of increasing severity (A, B and C). Patients whose

Basic concepts

The complex issues of optimal indications for transplantation and prioritization for the allocation of liver grafts have been the main incentives to the development and widespread diffusion of MELD score. However, it must be noted that MELD score has been originally created with the aim of predicting survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) [32], a context that may differ from that of candidates for transplantation. On the basis of multivariate analysis using Cox

Child or MELD?

The principal characteristics of Child–Pugh score and MELD score are compared in Table 3. For studying or managing populations of cirrhotic patients, MELD offers convincing advantages over Child–Pugh. MELD score relies on a triad of simple and objective biological variables, which facilitates comparisons between populations. These biological variables, in contrast to ascites and encephalopathy are not influenced by individual judgement and may only be slightly altered by external factors. The

Summary

Child-Pugh classification has been a reference for more than 30 years for assessing the prognosis of cirrhosis. MELD score comes as the most serious challenger for replacing Child-Pugh score and overcoming its limitations. The principal advantages of MELD score are that (a) it is based on variables selected by statistical analysis rather than clinical judgement, (b) the variables are objective and unlikely to be influenced by external factors, (c) each variable is weighted according its proper

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (50)

  • P. Johnson et al.

    Hepatocellular carcinoma and the art of prognostication

    J Hepatol

    (2000)
  • A. Said et al.

    Model for end stage liver disease score predicts mortality across a broad spectrum of liver disease

    J Hepatol

    (2004)
  • G. Longheval et al.

    Predictive models of short- and long-term survival in patients with nonbiliary cirrhosis

    Liver Transpl

    (2003)
  • E. Christensen

    Prognostic models in chronic liver disease: validity, usefulness and future role

    J Hepatol

    (1997)
  • F. Salerno et al.

    Prognostic value of the galactose test in predicting survival of patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation. A prospective multicenter Italian study. AISF Group for the Study of Liver Transplantation. Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Fegato

    J Hepatol

    (1996)
  • M. Zoli et al.

    Prognostic significance of portal hemodynamics in patients with compensated cirrhosis

    J Hepatol

    (1993)
  • E. Christensen

    Prognostic models including the Child–Pugh, MELD and Mayo risk scores-where are we and where should we go?

    J Hepatol

    (2004)
  • R.B. Freeman et al.

    Liver transplant waiting time does not correlate with waiting list mortality: implications for liver allocation policy

    Liver Transpl

    (2000)
  • M. Schepke et al.

    Comparison of MELD, Child–Pugh, and Emory model for the prediction of survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2003)
  • F. Durand et al.

    Assessment of the benefits and risks of percutaneous biopsy before surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

    J Hepatol

    (2001)
  • N.N. Onaca et al.

    A correlation between the pretransplantation MELD score and mortality in the first two years after liver transplantation

    Liver Transpl

    (2003)
  • R. Wiesner et al.

    Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers

    Gastroenterology

    (2003)
  • C.G. Child et al.

    Surgery and portal hypertension

  • E. Christensen et al.

    Updating prognosis and therapeutic effect evaluation in cirrhosis with Cox's multiple regression model for time-dependent variables

    Scand J Gastroenterol

    (1986)
  • P. Gines et al.

    Compensated cirrhosis: natural history and prognostic factors

    Hepatology

    (1987)
  • Cited by (489)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text