Andreas Kamlot

Review: Artificial liver support systems

Despite recent advances in medical therapy, patients with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) have a mortality rate approaching 90%. Many patients die because of failure to arrest the progression of cerebral edema. Liver transplantation has improved survival to 65% to 75%. However, there is a shortage of donors and approximately one half of the patients with FHF will die while awaiting liver transplantation. There is thus a need to develop an extracorporeal liver assist system to help keep these patients alive and neurologically intact until either an organ becomes available for transplantation or the native liver recovers from injury. Such a system could also be used during the period of functional recovery from massive liver resection or to assist patients with decompensated chronic liver disease. Over the years, various methods utilizing charcoal and resin hemoperfusion, dialysis, plasma exchange, and other methods of blood detoxification have been developed and tested, but none have gained wide acceptance. This was due to: (i) incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology of liver failure; (ii) lack of accurate methods of assessment, quantitation, and stratification of the degree of liver dysfunction; and (iii) inadequate numbers of prospective controlled clinical trials examining the effects of specific therapeutic modalities. Liver support systems utilizing liver tissue preparations were developed in the 1950s, but it was not until recently that advances in hepatocyte isolation and culture, better understanding of hepatocyte‐matrix interactions, and improved hollow‐fiber technology have resulted in the development of a new generation of liver assist devices. Some of these devices are currently being tested in the clinical setting. In a preliminary clinical study, we have used a porcine hepatocyte‐based liver support system to treat patients with acute liver failure as well as patients with acute exacerbation of chronic liver disease. Patients in the first group, who were candidates for transplantation, were successfully bridged to a transplant with excellent survival. No obvious benefit from bioartifical liver treatments was seen in the second group. It is possible that, in this group, patients will have to be treated earlier and for longer periods of time. Prospective controlled trials will be initiated as soon as the current phase I study is concluded to determine the efficacy of this system in both patients populations.