Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 24, 2014

Multi-center proficiency tests for Lab-MELD score diagnostics to improve the quality and safety for patients awaiting liver transplantation

  • Thorsten Kaiser EMAIL logo , Stefan Zeuzem , Ralf Lichtinghagen , Martin W. Welker , Wolf J. Geilenkeuser , Rolf Kruse , Michael Neumaier , Joachim Thiery and Michael Schmidt

Corresponding author: Dr. med. Thorsten Kaiser, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, University Hospital Leipzig, Paul-List-Strasse, 13-15; 04275 Leipzig, Germany, Phone: +49 431 9722200, Fax: +49 431 9722209, E-mail:

References

1. Kamath PS, Kim WR. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Hepatology 2007;45:797–805.10.1002/hep.21563Search in Google Scholar

2. German Medical Association. Guidelines according to organ transplantation. § 16 Section 1 Sentence 1, No 2. and 5. TPG. Dtsch Arztebl 2013;110:A-241/. B-225/. C-225.Search in Google Scholar

3. German Medical Association 2013. Directive of the German Medical Association for quality assurance of medical laboratory investigations (Rili-BAeK). Available from: http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/Rili-BAeK-Labor_092013.pdf. Accessed on 27 February, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

4. Trotter JF, Brimhall B, Arjal R, Phillips C. Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004;10:995–1000.10.1002/lt.20195Search in Google Scholar

5. Trotter JF, Olson J, Lefkowitz J, Smith AD, Arjal R, Kenison J. Changes in international normalized ratio (INR) and model for endstage liver disease (MELD) based on selection of clinical laboratory. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1624–8.10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01822.xSearch in Google Scholar

6. Schouten JN, Francque S, van Vlierberghe H, Colle I, Nevens F, Delwaide J, et al. The influence of laboratory-induced MELD score differences on liver allocation: more reality than myth. Clin Transplant 2012;26:E62–70.10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01538.xSearch in Google Scholar

7. Kaiser T, Kinny-Köster B, Bartels M, Parthaune T, Schmidt M, Thiery J. Impact of different creatinine measurement methods on liver transplant allocation. PLoS One 2014;9:e90015.10.1371/journal.pone.0090015Search in Google Scholar

8. Kaiser T, Zeuzem S, Lichtinghagen R, Geilenkeuser WJ, Kruse R, Neumaier M, et al. Evaluation study for the influence of diagnostic methods for bilirubin, creatinine and prothrombin (INR) for laboratory MELD score calculations. J Hepatol 2013;58:S63–227.10.1016/S0168-8278(13)60165-8Search in Google Scholar

9. Tripodi A, Chantarangkul V, Primignani M, Fabris F, Dell’Era A, Sei C, et al. The international normalized ratio calibrated for cirrhosis (INR(liver)) normalizes prothrombin time results for model for end-stage liver disease calculation. Hepatology 2007;46:520–7.10.1002/hep.21732Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Sermon AM, Smith JM, Maclean R, Kitchen S. An International Sensitivity Index (ISI) derived from patients with abnormal liver function improves agreement between INRs determined with different reagents. Thromb Haemost 2010;103:757–65.10.1160/TH09-08-0535Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2014-1-24
Accepted: 2014-6-3
Published Online: 2014-6-24
Published in Print: 2014-12-1

©2014 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 29.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2014-0088/html
Scroll to top button