Acute liver failure and liver assist devices

Extracorporeal liver support in patients with liver failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) are associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Extracorporeal liver support (ECLS) devices have been used as a bridge to liver transplant; however, the efficacy and safety of ECLS are unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of ECLS in liver failure.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through March 13, 2019. RCTs comparing ECLS to usual care in ALF or ACLF were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 25 RCTs (1796 patients). ECLS use was associated with reduction in mortality (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74, 0.96, moderate certainty) and improvement in hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.60, 0.84, low certainty) in patients with ALF or ACLF. The effect of ECLS on hypotension (RR 1.46; 95% CI 0.98, 2.2, low certainty), bleeding (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.88, 1.66, moderate certainty), thrombocytopenia (RR 1.62; 95% CI 1.0, 2.64, very low certainty) and line infection (RR 1.92; 95% CI 0.11, 33.44, low certainty) was uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

ECLS may reduce mortality and improve HE in patients with ALF and ACLF. The effect on other outcomes is uncertain. However, the evidence is limited by risk of bias and imprecision, and larger trials are needed to better determine the effect of ECLS on patient-important outcomes.

Serum Metabonomics Analysis of Liver Failure Treated by Nonbioartificial Liver Support Systems

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the small molecular metabolic compounds of nonbioartificial liver for treatment of hepatic failure and make further efforts to study the clinical efficacy, mechanism of action, and pathogenesis of hepatic failure.

METHODS

52 patients who met the standard of artificial liver treatment for liver failure were enrolled; these patients included 6 cases of acute liver failure (11.54%), 3 cases of subacute liver failure (5.77%), acute-on-chronic liver failure in 10 cases (19.23%), and 33 cases of chronic liver failure (63.46%). Treatment modes included plasma exchange in 34 patients (65.38%), bilirubin adsorption in 9 patients (17.31%), and hemofiltration in 9 patients (17.31%). The clinical efficacy of artificial liver was assessed by monitoring the effects in the near future. Significant changes in metabolic compounds of liver failure in the treatment before and after artificial liver were screened by using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-MS). Related metabolic pathways were analyzed by MetaboAnalyst.

RESULTS

After artificial liver treatment, the liver function and coagulation function of liver failure patients were significantly improved (P < 0.01), the Meld score was lower than that before treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Serum metabolomics identified 29 small metabolic compounds and 12 metabolic pathways with variable projection importance (VIP) greater than 1 before and after artificial liver treatment. There were 11 metabolic compounds of VIP over 1 and 7 metabolic pathways in the different modes of artificial liver treatment for chronic liver failure. Among them, bile acid metabolism, fatty acid metabolism, and amino acid metabolism are the main sources.

CONCLUSION

Artificial liver treatment can effectively improve liver function and blood coagulation function and Meld score, clinical symptoms and signs in patients with liver failure; the curative effect of artificial liver was verified, which reflected the clinical value of artificial liver in the treatment of liver failure. Artificial liver treatment of liver failure on fatty acids and primary bile acid synthesis pathway was the most significant. The difference of fatty acid, primary bile acid synthesis pathway, and phenylalanine metabolic pathway in different artificial liver patterns of chronic liver failure was the most significant. This provides a new basis for understanding the mechanism of hepatic failure and the mechanism of liver failure by artificial liver treatment.

Advances in sepsis-associated liver dysfunction

Recent studies have revealed liver dysfunction as an early event in sepsis. Sepsis-associated liver dysfunction is mainly resulted from systemic or microcirculatory disturbances, spillovers of bacteria and endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS), and subsequent activation of inflammatory cytokines as well as mediators. Three main cell types of the liver which contribute to the hepatic response in sepsis are Kupffer cells (KCs), hepatocytes and liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs). In addition, activated neutrophils, which are also recruited to the liver and produce potentially destructive enzymes and oxygen-free radicals, may further enhance acute liver injury. The clinical manifestations of sepsis-associated liver dysfunction can roughly be divided into two categories: Hypoxic hepatitis and jaundice. The latter is much more frequent in the context of sepsis. Hepatic failure is traditionally considered as a late manifestation of sepsis-induced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. To date, no specific therapeutics for sepsis-associated liver dysfunction are available. Treatment measure is mainly focused on eradication of the underlying infection and management for severe sepsis. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of liver response in sepsis may lead to further increase in survival rates.

Liver renewal: detecting misrepair and optimizing regeneration

Cirrhosis and liver cancer, the main causes of liver-related morbidity and mortality, result from defective repair of liver injury. This article summarizes rapidly evolving knowledge about liver myofibroblasts and progenitors, the 2 key cell types that interact to orchestrate effective repair, because deregulation of these cells is likely to be central to the pathogenesis of both cirrhosis and liver cancer. We focus on cirrhosis pathogenesis because cirrhosis is the main risk factor for primary liver cancer. Emerging evidence suggests that the defective repair process has certain characteristics that might be exploited for biomarker development. Recent findings in preclinical models also indicate that the newly identified cellular and molecular targets are amenable to therapeutic manipulation. Thus, recent advances in our understanding about key cell types and fundamental mechanisms that regulate liver regeneration have opened new avenues to improve the outcomes of liver injury.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899859.

Artificial and bioartificial liver support systems for acute and acute-on-chronic hepatic failure: A meta-analysis and meta-regression

Artificial and bioartificial liver support systems (LSSs) appear to be safe and effective in the treatment of acute and acute-on-chronic hepatic failure (AHF and AOCHF); however, individually published studies and previous meta-analyses have revealed inconclusive results. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to derive a more precise estimation of the benefits and disadvantages of artificial and bioartificial LSSs for patients with AHF and AOCHF. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical (CBM) databases for publications prior to March 1, 2013. Crude relative risks (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either the fixed effects or random effects models. Nineteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, which comprised a total of 566 patients with AHF and 371 patients with AOCHF. The meta-analysis showed that artificial LSS therapy significantly reduced mortality in patients with AOCHF; however, it had no apparent effect on total mortality in patients with AHF. The results also indicated that the use of bioartificial LSSs was correlated with decreased mortality in patients with AHF. A significant reduction in the bridging to liver transplantation was observed in patients with AOCHF following artificial LSS therapy; however, similar results were not observed in patients with AHF. Patients with AHF and those with AOCHF showed significant reductions in total bilirubin levels following artificial LSS therapy. There were no significantly increased risks of hepatic encephalopathy or bleeding in either the patients with AHF or AOCHF following artificial or bioartificial LSS therapies. Univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses confirmed that none of the factors explained the heterogeneity. The present meta-analysis indicated that artificial LSSs reduce mortality in patients with AOCHF, while the use of bioartificial LSSs was correlated with reduced mortality in patients with AHF.