 |
|
Artificial and Bioartificial Support Systems for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure
A Systematic Review
Lise L. Kjaergard, MD;
Jianping Liu, PhD;
Bodil Als-Nielsen, MD;
Christian Gluud, DMSc
JAMA. 2003;289:217-222.
Context Artificial and bioartificial support systems may provide a "bridge" for patients with severe liver disease to recovery or transplantation.
Objective To evaluate the effect of artificial and bioartificial support systems for acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure.
Data Sources Randomized trials on any support system vs standard medical therapy were included irrespective of publication status or language. Nonrandomized studies were included in explorative analyses. Trials were identified through electronic searches (Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Chinese Medical Database), bibliographies, and contact with experts. Searches were conducted of the entire databases through September 2002.
Study Selection Of 528 references identified, 12 randomized trials with 483 patients were included. Eight nonrandomized studies were included in explorative analyses.
Data Extraction Data were extracted and trial quality was assessed independently by 3 reviewers (L.L.K., J.L., B.A-N.). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Results were combined on the risk ratio (RR) scale. Random-effects models were used. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through meta-regression and stratified meta-analyses.
Data Synthesis Of the 12 trials included, 10 assessed artificial systems for acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and 2 assessed bioartificial systems for acute liver failure. Overall, support systems had no significant effect on mortality compared with standard medical therapy (RR, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.12). Meta-regression indicated that the effect of support systems depended on the type of liver failure (P = .03). In stratified meta-analyses, support systems appeared to reduce mortality by 33% in acute-on-chronic liver failure (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90), but not in acute liver failure (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). Compared with randomized trials, nonrandomized studies produced significantly larger estimates of intervention effects (P = .01).
Conclusion This review suggests that artificial support systems reduce mortality in acute-on-chronic liver failure compared with standard medical therapy. Artificial and bioartificial support systems did not appear to affect mortality in acute liver failure.
Author Affiliations: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, H:S Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark (Drs Kjaergard, Liu, Als-Nielsen, and Gluud), and West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (Dr Liu).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Current concepts in the assessment and treatment of Hepatic Encephalopathy
Cash et al.
QJM 2009;0:hcp152v1-hcp152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A 35-year-old Asian man with jaundice and markedly high aminotransferase levels
HANOUNEH et al.
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2009;76:449-456.
FULL TEXT
Fulminant hepatic failure: etiology and indications for liver transplantation
Gotthardt et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007;22:viii5-viii8.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System in Acute Liver Failure Attributable to Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever
Penafiel et al.
J Intensive Care Med 2006;21:369-371.
ABSTRACT
PROSPECTS FOR EXTRACORPOREAL LIVER SUPPORT
Jalan et al.
Gut 2004;53:890-898.
FULL TEXT
Artificial Liver Support: Potential to Retard Regeneration?
Mullin et al.
Arch Surg 2004;139:670-677.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Advances in Critical Care Hepatology
Marrero et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003;168:1421-1426.
FULL TEXT
|
