eISSN: 1897-4317
ISSN: 1895-5770
Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny
Bieżący numer Archiwum Artykuły zaakceptowane O czasopiśmie Rada naukowa Bazy indeksacyjne Prenumerata Kontakt Zasady publikacji prac
Panel Redakcyjny
Zgłaszanie i recenzowanie prac online
NOWOŚĆ
Portal dla gastroenterologów!
www.egastroenterologia.pl
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2024
vol. 19
 
Poleć ten artykuł:
Udostępnij:
Artykuł przeglądowy

Safety and efficacy of Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis (SPAD), Prometheus, and Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS) liver haemodialysis vs. Standard Medical Therapy (SMT): meta-analysis and systematic review

Eyad Gadour
1
,
Mohammed Abdullah Kaballo
2
,
Khalid Shrwani
3
,
Zeinab Hassan
4
,
Ahmed Kotb
5
,
Ahmed Aljuraysan
1
,
Bogdan Miuţescu
6
,
Nouf Sherwani
7
,
Waleed Mahallawi
8

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, King Abdulaziz National Guard Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
  2. Department of Nephrology, King Abdulaziz National Guard Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
  3. Saudi Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Authority, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Stockport Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
  5. Department of Vascular Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, United Kingdom
  6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
  7. Department of Surgery, Mohammed bin Nasser Hospital, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
  8. College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
Gastroenterology Rev 2024; 19 (2): 101–111
Data publikacji online: 2024/04/29
Plik artykułu:
Pobierz cytowanie
 
Metryki PlumX:
 

Introduction

Hepatic dysfunction, also known as liver dysfunction, is a medical condition characterized by impaired liver function. This condition manifests as a chronic or acute subclinical cellular disturbance but can progress into life-threatening hepatic failure with multiple organ failure when left untreated [1]. Research has shown that in the United States alone, more than 100 million people live with some form of hepatic dysfunction; however, only 4.5 million adults have been diagnosed with this condition [2]. The most common aetiologies of liver dysfunction include viral infections (hepatitis A, B, C, D, and E), alcohol abuse, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis, medications, toxins, and genetic conditions such as haemochromatosis, Wilson’s disease, and α1 antitrypsin [3].

Because not all liver disease patients are suitable for transplantations and there is a shortage of grafts [4, 5], the need for liver support therapies to stabilize hepatic functions or enable bridging to liver transplantations has been enhanced. In this regard, extracorporeal albumin dialysis (ECAD) has been a valuable supplement to standard medical therapy (SMT). The commonly used ECAD therapies are Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis (SPAD), Prometheus, and Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS). MARS is currently the most common ECAD that combines dialysis with adsorption techniques to remove water-soluble and protein-bound toxins in the bloodstream of hepatic dysfunction patients. Several clinical trials have shown that MARS is a feasible tool for reducing bilirubin levels, improving hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and enhancing haemodynamic stability [68]. However, large clinical trials have shown that this technique has no survival benefit and has potential complications such as coagulopathy and hypotension [8]. On the other hand, SPAD is a liver support therapy that utilizes a high-flux dialysis membrane to effectively capture and remove albumin-bound toxins. Clinical trials have shown that SPAD is associated with the reduction of bilirubin levels and improvement of the patient’s clinical condition (HE) [9]. Finally, Prometheus is a liver support therapy combining fractioned plasma separation and adsorption (FPSA) with flux dialysis to eliminate a wide range of toxins while simultaneously replacing essential molecules.

Although these ECAD devices have been incorporated to supplement SMT, their efficacy and safety are often questioned. Therefore, we carried out the current systematic review to summarize the evidence about the effectiveness of MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus in the reduction of albumin-bound and water-soluble substances, improvement of HE, reduction of mortality, and their safety among patients with various liver-related disorders.

Methodology

Information sources and searches

The PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were extensively searched for all randomized trials published from inception until October 2023. In addition, bibliographies of potential articles were scrutinized for more studies. During the database search, the advance option was employed to search for articles with the following MeSH terms and keywords: (albumin dialysis OR Extracorporeal albumin dialysis OR Prometheus OR molecular adsorbent recycling system OR MARS OR Single-Pass Albumin dialysis OR liver hemodialysis OR Fractioned Plasma Separation and Adsorption) AND (hepatic dysfunction OR liver dysfunction OR liver disease OR liver failure OR Acute-on-chronic liver failure OR acute liver failure). Furthermore, grey literature and exact or close duplicates were eliminated because they would interfere with the scientific research purpose of the present study.

Eligibility criteria

Two impartial reviewers examined potential studies that adhered to the predefined eligibility criteria. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized trials published in English, comprised adult human patients with liver disorders, and compared the safety or efficacy of SPAD, MARS, and Prometheus to SMT or each other. On the other hand, studies that did not match these criteria or were designed as case reports, conference abstracts, systematic reviews, letters to the editors, or did not have comparative groups were excluded. All the discrepancies during this process were amicably resolved by consulting a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently abstracted the data required for review and analysis into separate Excel files. In case of disparities in abstracted data, the 2 reviewers resolved their differences via constructive debates or by consulting a third reviewer if a compromise was not met. The data extracted by these reviewers included author ID (surname of the primary author and the year of publication), study design, study period, location of the study (country), pertinent characteristics of the enrolled patients (sample size, gender distribution, and the underlying liver-related disorder(s)), interventions (albumin dialysis systems used and comparator), follow-up duration, and outcomes.

The outcomes were categorized as either safety or efficacy endpoints. The efficacy endpoints comprised changes in total bilirubin, bile acids, ammonia, HE improvements, and mortality outcomes. On the other hand, safety outcomes encompassed all the adverse events witnessed after treatment. Improvement in HE was defined as the rate of individuals who had at least 2-grade improvement in West Haven grade of HE from baseline.

Quality appraisal

All the studies in the present systematic review were randomized trials; therefore, the potential risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool embedded within the Review Manager software. The risk of bias was evaluated according to 5 domains, i.e. selection, attrition, performance, reporting, and other biases. For each domain, the low risk of bias was assigned for a fully addressed criterion, while high and unclear risk of bias was assigned to criteria not addressed or with insufficient information, respectively.

Data synthesis

Review Manager software (version 5.4.1) was used to conduct all meta-analytic data analyses in the present review. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used in these analyses to pool the estimated weighted effect sizes. Moreover, for dichotomous outcomes, the overall effect sizes were calculated using risk ratio (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), while for continuous outcomes, the effect sizes were calculated using the mean differences (MD). The heterogeneity between study outcomes was calculated using the I2 and χ2 statistics, for which values of > 50% and < 0.10, respectively, were considered significant [10]. In cases where data were presented as median, range, and interquartile ranges, the means and standard deviations were calculated according to the formula described by Hozo et al. [11]. Whenever possible, subgroup analyses were carried out according to the ECAD modality.

Results

Study selection

Our preliminary database search revealed 4359 viable articles with the specified MeSH phrases and keywords. Additionally, the in-depth review of reference lists uncovered 66 potential records. After a duplicate screening of these articles, 1683 regarded as exacts or nearly identical duplicates were omitted. Out of the remaining 2742 records, 1801 were discarded because they violated the title and abstract screening criteria, while 886 were not retrieved because they were either conference abstracts, case reports, ongoing trials, in vitro studies, observational studies, letters to the editors, or systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, only 12 papers were accepted for review and analysis, and the remaining 43 were discarded based on the following exclusion criteria: 3 were published in different languages, 35 did not have comparative groups, and 5 included animal subjects (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for study selection

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g001_min.jpg

Summary of study characteristics and risk of bias assessment

Characteristics of individual studies are summarized in Table I [1220]. The 12 trials spanned 21 years and included 653 patients with varied liver-related disorders. Nine of these trials were performed in individual countries, and 3 were in multiple countries. In addition, 6 trials compared MARS treatment to SMT, one compared Prometheus to SMT, 2 compared MARS to SPAD, one compared MARS to Prometheus, and 2 compared both MARS and Prometheus to SMT.

Table I

Study characteristics

Author IDStudy designStudy periodCountryPertinent patient characteristicsInterventionsFollow-up [days]Outcomes
Sample (n)M/FUnderlying liver-related disorder(s)
Banares et al., 2013 [6]Multicentre RCT2003–2009Austria. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and UK179123/56Acutely decompensated cirrhosisMARS plus SMT vs. SMT alone28Improvement of HE, reduction in bilirubin, mortality, and adverse events
Dethloff et al., 2008 [12]Single-centre RCTNRDenmark2415/9Decompensated cirrhosisMARS vs. Prometheus vs. SMTNRMortality and changes in bilirubin
Hassanein et al., 2007 [7]Multicentre RCT2000–2003USA, Germany, and Denmark7039/31Cirrhosis with grade 3 or 4 HEMARS plus SMT vs. SMT alone180Improvement in HE, mortality, adverse events, and reduction in bilirubin, ammonia, and bile acids
Heemann et al., 2002 [13]An open-label prospective multicentre RCTNRGermany2414/10Cirrhosis with superimposed acute liver injuryMARS vs. SMT30Mortality, adverse events, and changes in bilirubin and bile acids
Kribben et al., 2012 [14]Multicentre prospective RCT.2005–2008Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, UK, Belgium, and Croatia14592/53ALD and viral liver diseasePrometheus vs. SMT90Mortality, adverse events, and changes in bilirubin
Laleman et al., 2006 [15]Single-centre RCTNRBelgium1812/6Alcoholic cirrhosis with superimposed alcoholic hepatitisMARS plus SMT vs. Prometheus plus SMT vs. SMT aloneNRAdverse events, changes in bilirubin, ammonia, and bile acids
Mitzner et al., 2000 [16]Multicentre prospective RCT1997–1999Germany135/8ALD, Chronic hepatitis B, PBC, and secondary biliary cirrhosisMARS plus SMT vs. HDF plus SMT30Changes in bilirubin and mortality
Saliba et al., 2013 [8]An Open-label-prospective multicentre RCT2004–2007France10244/58Drug-related liver dysfunctionMARS vs. SMT180Mortality and adverse events
Sen et al., 2004 [17]Single-centre RCTNRUK1813/5ALDMARS vs. SMT7Improvement in HE, mortality, and changes in bilirubin and ammonia
Sponholz et al., 2016 [18]Single-centre prospective cross-over RCT2010–2013Germany3218/14NRMARS vs. 4% SPADNRChanges in bilirubin and bile acids
Stadlbauer et al., 2007 [19]cross-over RCT2003–2004Austria85/3Alcoholic cirrhosis, metastatic colon cancer, and graft dysfunctionMARS vs. Prometheus106Changes in bile acids
Wallon et al., 2021 [20]An open-label crossover RCT2011–2017France2017/3ALD, hepatitis B, NAFLD, cholestatic liver disease, hemochromatosis, primary graft dysfunction, post hepatectomy liver failure, and toxic/drug-related liver dysfunctionMARS vs. 3.2% SPADNRChanges in bilirubin, ammonia, and bile acids

[i] SPAD – Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis, MARS – Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System, SMT – Standard Medical Therapy, NR – not reported, RCT – randomized controlled trial, HE – hepatic encephalopathy, ALD – alcoholic liver disease, NAFLD – non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, PBC – primary biliary cirrhosis, HDF – haemodiafiltration.

The risk of bias is summarized in Figure 2. The assessment shows that all the trials had a low risk of bias under the selection domain (i.e. random sequence generation and allocation concealment). Furthermore, all the studies were considered to have a high risk of performance because it was not possible to blind both patients and personnel to the treatment. Under the other bias domain, studies were considered to have a high risk of bias if they were carried out in single centres.

Figure 2

Risk of bias summary

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g002_min.jpg

Efficacy of ECAD in the reduction of Albumin-bound and water-soluble substances

In the current systematic review, albumin-bound toxins were represented by total bilirubin and bile acids. Subgroup analysis of data from 5 included studies showed that, compared to SMT, the removal of bilirubin was more pronounced with the use of MARS (MD = –5.14 mg/dl; 95% CI: –7.26 – –3.02; p < 0.00001) (Figure 3). Similarly, data from 3 trials revealed that Prometheus is more efficient than SMT in removing bilirubin (MD = –8.11 mg/dl.; 95% CI: –12.40 – –3.82; p = 0.0002) (Figure 3). However, our subgroup analysis showed that MARS has a comparable effect in the reduction of bilirubin as Prometheus (MD = 2.98 mg/dl; 95% CI: –4.26 – 10.22; p = 0.42) and SPAD (MD = 0.67 mg/dl; 95% CI: –2.22 – 3.56; p = 0.65) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Forest plot showing the efficacy of ECAD devices in reduction of bilirubin levels

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g003_min.jpg

On the other hand, a subgroup meta-analysis revealed that MARS has a similar effect in the reduction of total bile acids as SMT (MD = –13.42 µmol/l; 95% CI: –54.44 – 27.59; p = 0.52), SPAD (MD = –17.06 µmol/l; 95% CI: –64.33 – 30.20; p = 0.48) and Prometheus (MD = 16.21 µmol/l; 95% CI:–17.26 – 49.68; p = 0.34) (Figure 4). However, the variation between these outcomes was significant (I2 = 67% and 89% for MARS vs. SMT and MARS vs. Prometheus, respectively).

Figure 4

Forest plot showing the efficacy of ECAD devices in reduction of total bile acids

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g004_min.jpg

In addition, the removal of water-soluble substances was assessed through ammonia levels. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that MARS has a comparable effect in the reduction of ammonia to that of SMT (MD = –23.15 µmol/l; 95% CI: –62.05 – 15.75; p = 0.24) and SPAD (MD = 26 µmol/l; 95% CI: –12.44 – 64.44; p = 0.18) (Figure 5). Similarly, Prometheus did not significantly reduce ammonia levels compared to SMT (MD = –3.70 µmol/l; 95% CI: –12.24 – 4.84) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Forest plot showing the efficacy of ECAD devices in reduction of ammonia

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g005_min.jpg

Efficacy of ECAD on improvement of HE

Although we aimed to analyse the effect of all ECAD systems on HE improvement, only 3 trials that compared MARS to SMT reported the effect on HE as one of the endpoints. The pooled analysis of data from these trials revealed that HE was significantly improved by the MARS device as opposed to the SMT (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15–2.05; p = 0.004) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Forest plot showing the efficacy of MARS on hepatic encephalopathy improvement

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g006_min.jpg

Efficacy of ECAD on mortality outcomes

In the subgroup analyses, MARS did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of mortality compared to SMT (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71–1.03; p = 0.11) or Prometheus (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.15–2.98; p = 0.60) (Figure 7). Similarly, albumin dialysis with Prometheus resulted in an insignificant reduction in mortality risk compared to SMT (RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66–1.14; p = 0.31) (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Forest plot showing the effect of ECAD devices on mortality outcomes

/f/fulltexts/PG/54082/PG-19-54082-g007_min.jpg

Safety analysis

The adverse events reported in each study were highly inconsistent. However, we managed to group these adverse events as respiratory, haematological, or bleeding complications. Respiratory complications comprised pulmonary infection/pneumonia, respiratory failure, pulmonary bleeding, aspiration, and dyspnoea. On the other hand, haematological complications included leukopaenia/pancytopaenia and thrombocytopaenia, while bleeding complications included any bleeding events and coagulopathy. A meta-analysis of these complications revealed that MARS and Prometheus did not have any significant decrease in adverse events compared to SMT (Table II).

Table II

Summary of adverse events after liver support therapies

Adverse eventsMARS vs. SMTPrometheus vs. SMT
No. of studiesRR (95% CI)P-valueNo. of studiesRR (95% CI)P-value
Respiratory complications41.10 (0.73–1.65)0.65
Haematological complications41.12 (0.73–1.74)0.6013.00 (0.15–61.74)0.48
Bleeding complications51.52 (0.75–3.08)0.2410.88 (0.62–1.26)0.49

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the efficacy and safety of MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus in patients with hepatic dysfunction. The use of MARS and Prometheus was associated with a considerable reduction in total bilirubin levels compared to SMT. However, the reduction of bilirubin, bile acids, and ammonia between the 3 ECAD systems did not differ statistically, suggesting that MARS is as effective as Prometheus and SDAD in the removal of albumin-bound toxins and water-soluble substances. Moreover, the adverse effects witnessed after albumin dialysis with MARS and Prometheus were similar to those observed after SMT. Therefore, MARS and Prometheus are safe liver haemodialysis treatments.

The significant reduction in bilirubin levels after MARS and Prometheus treatment agrees with a previous systematic review of patients with acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure [21]. Furthermore, our analysis has shown that MARS is as effective as SPAD and Prometheus in reducing bilirubin levels. However, the heterogeneity observed in the analyses of MARS compared with Prometheus was significant, suggesting a variation in outcomes. Laleman et al. found that in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis superimposed with alcoholic hepatitis, Prometheus treatment had a more pronounced reduction of total bilirubin levels than MARS [15]. This significant difference can be attributed to the fact clearance of albumin-bound substances is dependent on the dialysate flow rate [22]. In that trial, the Prometheus flow rate was higher than that of MARS (300 ml/l vs. 200 ml/l, respectively) [15]. Another possibility for the significant difference is the bilirubin concentrations before treatment. In that trial, patients randomized to the Prometheus group had higher bilirubin levels than those in the MARS group (29.7 mg/dl vs. 21.8 mg/dl, respectively) [15]; hence, the clearance of these albumin-bound substances was likely to be higher in the Prometheus group.

Although bilirubin has been routinely used to assess the removal of albumin-bound substances, other parameters, such as bile acids, might be of greater clinical importance in defining excretory liver dysfunction. First, toxic bile acids are likely to induce hepatocyte and biliary epithelial cell necrosis [23]; hence, they are of prognostic importance [24, 25]. Furthermore, research suggests that toxic bile acids can result in remote organ dysfunction such as cirrhotic cardiomyopathy [26] and reduced systemic vascular resistance [27]. Our analysis found that MARS did not significantly reduce total bile acids compared to SMT, SPAD, or Prometheus. However, the variation compared to SMT and Prometheus was significant, suggesting highly inconsistent outcomes. In their research, Laleman et al. found that MARS had a significantly higher bile acids clearance than SMT. However, the clearance was more pronounced with the Prometheus device than the MARS device [15]. The difference observed in this study can be attributed to the conceptual differences between the devices. In contrast, Standlbeur et al. found no significant difference in the absolute reduction of total bile acids between the MARS and Prometheus devices [19]. However, they found that in the Prometheus group, the reduction ratio for cholic acid (CA) was slightly higher than that of chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA). Furthermore, the plasma clearance of bile acids was studied over a 6-hour period, showing that at the beginning of treatment bile acid clearance was nearly identical between the Prometheus and MARS groups and within the range of previously published data [28, 29].

During liver dysfunction, acute or chronic renal insufficiency is a commonly observed complication. Therefore, the removal of other water-soluble substances, such as creatinine, during ECAD is of great importance. In their research, Banares et al. found that among patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis, MARS treatment was associated with a significant reduction in serum creatinine than SMT (–20.04% vs. –6.43%; p = 0.022) [6]. This finding is consistent with what was documented in other studies [15, 16]. However, the research by Sen et al. [17] suggests that patients in the SMT group had a higher reduction in creatinine levels than those in the MARS group (from 88 to 86.5 µmol/l vs. 113 to 62.5 µmol/l, respectively). This finding can be explained by the fact that patients treated with SMT had higher creatinine levels before treatment than those treated with MARS. On the other hand, a prospective randomized trial of patients presenting acute liver failure demonstrated that MARS has a more pronounced efficacy in clearing water-soluble substances (i.e. creatinine and urea) than SPAD [18]. This improved efficacy of MARS may be due to the differing dialysate flow rates between devices (2000 ml/h vs. 700 ml/h, for MARS and SPAD, respectively) [19]. However, even after treating patients with SPAD and MARS of equal dialysate parameters, Wallon et al. found that MARS significantly reduced creatinine levels more than SPAD (p < 0.0001) [20]. Therefore, this clinical endpoint needs to be evaluated in more randomized trials to effectively define the role of SPAD in clearing creatinine compared to MARS.

Regarding HE improvement, we found that ECAD with MARS was more efficient than SMT in improving HE. Furthermore, Hassanein et al. reported that although MARS treatment was delayed by 5.25 h after randomization, the time to HE improvement was significantly shorter in the MARS group than in the SMT group (p = 0.044) [7]. This improvement in HE with MARS treatment agrees with previously published data [28, 3032] and can be attributed to various factors. First, HE improvement can be explained by a reduction in ammonia concentrations. However, like in previous research [30, 33], HE improved despite insignificant ammonia change. This finding suggests that improvement in HE after MARS treatment is independent of hyperammonaemia improvement. Another factor believed to be important in HE pathogenesis is inflammation [34]. Therefore, the reduction of proinflammatory cytokines might have resulted in HE improvement. Oxidative stress is also believed to be vital in HE pathogenesis [3537] because of its effects on mitochondria, membrane phospholipids oxidation, and various enzymes involved in metabolism [37]. Furthermore, the reduction of plasma nitrate and nitrite (NOx) may be considered as an underlying mechanism in HE improvement. Although the role of NO in HE remains unclear, there is emerging evidence that nitridation of critical proteins might contribute to altering their function or cause injury through nitrotyrosine formation.

Although our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in HE after MARS treatment, the subgroup analysis suggests that MARS has no mortality benefit in patients with hepatic dysfunction. This finding is highly paradoxical and needs further randomized trials to establish the mortality benefit of MARS. Furthermore, our analysis implied that Prometheus does not offer any significant reduction in mortality compared with SMT. This lack of survival improvement after albumin dialysis with either Prometheus or MARS can be attributed to several factors. One of the potential explanations is that the beneficial effects may have been counterbalanced by the complications associated with these procedures. This is evident in our study, where Prometheus and MARS have similar adverse events to SMT alone. Another possibility is that all the trials used for the mortality analysis were statistically underpowered to analyse this hard clinical endpoint, especially in clinical settings where the underlying comorbidities and severity of illness are predominant predictors of clinical outcomes. Finally, the number of ECAD sessions may have influenced the effect of these devices on mortality outcomes. Kribben et al. reported that the duration or number of FPSA sessions was insufficient for any survival benefit to be observed (average of 8 sessions) [14].

The present systematic review is subject to several limitations that ought to be considered while interpreting our findings. First, significant heterogeneity was observed in some of the meta-analyses. However, this heterogeneity in outcomes was expected given that the present systematic review pooled outcomes from studies with diverse methodologies, severity of liver dysfunction, underlying liver diseases, follow-up duration, and dialysate flow rates. Therefore, the use of a random-effects model to pool the outcomes was justified. Secondly, in all trials, double blinding was not possible; hence, it is possible that this bias was transferred to our assessment of HE improvement. Thirdly, due to limited trials on SPAD, we could not conclude the safety of SPAD and its impact on mortality outcomes among hepatic dysfunction patients. Finally, our eligibility criteria did not accommodate the inclusion of articles published in different languages and those with abstracts only, meaning that data from these articles that would have been used to improve the statistical power of meta-analysis were eliminated.

Conclusions

In patients with liver-related disorders, MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus are equally effective in reducing albumin-bound and water-soluble substances, as indicated by changes in bilirubin, bile acids, and ammonia levels. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that Prometheus may be more beneficial than MARS in the removal of toxic bile acids, while MARS with similar dialysate flow parameters as SPAD may increase the reduction of water-soluble substances such as creatinine. However, these findings prompt the conduct of more high-quality randomized trials. In addition, MARS and Prometheus have similar adverse events as SMT; therefore, these ECAD devices are safe treatments for patients with hepatic dysfunction. Furthermore, MARS is associated with a considerable improvement in HE without any significant improvement in survival outcome. Therefore, this calls for more randomized trials that evaluate the survival benefits of ECAD devices in patients with hepatic dysfunction.

Funding

No external funding.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Bready LL. Hepatic dysfunction. In: Decision Making In Anesthesiology (Fourth Edition). Bready LL, Dillman D, Noorily SH (eds.) Mosby, Philadelphia 2007; 204-5.

2 

American Live Fundation. How Many People Have Liver Disease? Https://Liverfoundation.Org/About-Your-Liver/Facts-About-Liver-Disease/How-Many-People-Have-Liver-Disease/.PublishedJuly29,2022. Accessed October 4, 2023.

3 

Sharma A, Nagalli S. Chronic liver disease. In: Statpearls. Treasure Island (FL): Statpearls Publishing; 2023. Http://Www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/Books/NBK554597/. Accessed October 9, 2023.

4 

Husen P, Hornung J, Benko T, et al. Risk factors for high mortality on the liver transplant waiting list in times of organ shortage: a single-center analysis. Ann Transplant 2019; 24: 242-51.

5 

Basto ST, Villela-Nogueira CA, Tura BR, et al. Risk factors for long-term mortality in a large cohort of patients wait-listed for liver transplantation in Brazil. Liver Transpl 2011; 17: 1013-20.

6 

Bañares R, Nevens F, Larsen FS, et al. Extracorporeal albumin dialysis with the molecular adsorbent recirculating system in acute-on-chronic liver failure: the RELIEF trial. Hepatology 2013; 57: 1153-62.

7 

Hassanein TI, Tofteng F, Brown RS, et al. Randomized controlled study of extracorporeal albumin dialysis for hepatic encephalopathy in advanced cirrhosis. Hepatology 2007; 46: 1853-62.

8 

Saliba F, Camus C, Durand F, et al. Albumin dialysis with a noncell artificial liver support device in patients with acute liver failure: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 522-31.

9 

Rademacher S, Oppert M, Jörres A. Artificial extracorporeal liver support therapy in patients with severe liver failure. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 5: 591-9.

10 

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60.

11 

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 13.

12 

Dethloff T, Tofteng F, Frederiksen HJ, et al. Effect of prometheus liver assist system on systemic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis: a randomized controlled study. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 2065-71.

13 

Heemann U, Treichel U, Loock J, et al. Albumin dialysis in cirrhosis with superimposed acute liver injury: a prospective, controlled study. Hepatology 2002; 36: 949-58.

14 

Kribben A, Gerken G, Haag S, et al. Effects of fractionated plasma separation and adsorption on survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 782-9.

15 

Laleman W, Wilmer A, Evenepoel P, et al. Effect of the molecular adsorbent recirculating system and prometheus devices on systemic haemodynamics and vasoactive agents in patients with acute-on-chronic alcoholic liver failure. Crit Care 2006; 10: R108.

16 

Mitzner SR, Stange J, Klammt S, et al. Improvement of hepatorenal syndrome with extracorporeal albumin dialysis mars: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Liver Transpl 2000; 6: 277-86.

17 

Sen S, Davies NA, Mookerjee RP, et al. Pathophysiological effects of albumin dialysis in acute-on-chronic liver failure: a randomized controlled study. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 1109-19.

18 

Sponholz C, Matthes K, Rupp D, et al. Molecular adsorbent recirculating system and single-pass albumin dialysis in liver failure--a prospective, randomised crossover study. Crit Care 2016; 20: 2.

19 

Stadlbauer V, Krisper P, Beuers U, et al. Removal of bile acids by two different extracorporeal liver support systems in acute-on-chronic liver failure. ASAIO J 2007; 53: 187-93.

20 

Wallon G, Guth C, Guichon C, et al. Extracorporeal albumin dialysis in liver failure with MARS and SPAD: a randomized crossover trial. Blood Purif 2021; 51: 243-50.

21 

Tsipotis E, Shuja A, Jaber BL. Albumin dialysis for liver failure: a systematic review. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2015; 22: 382-90.

22 

Meyer TW, Leeper EC, Bartlett DW, et al. Increasing dialysate flow and dialyzer mass transfer area coefficient to increase the clearance of protein-bound solutes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15: 1927-35.

23 

Woolbright BL, Jaeschke H. Novel insight into mechanisms of cholestatic liver injury. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 4985-93.

24 

Recknagel P, Gonnert FA, Westermann M, at al. Liver dysfunction and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase signalling in early sepsis: experimental studies in rodent models of peritonitis. PLoS Med 2012; 9: E1001338.

25 

Woolbright BL, Mcgill MR, Staggs VS, et al. Glycodeoxycholic acid levels as prognostic biomarker in acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure patients. Toxicol Sci 2014; 142: 436-44.

26 

Desai MS, Shabier Z, Taylor M, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and dysregulation of cardiac energetics in a mouse model of biliary fibrosis. Hepatology 2010; 51: 2097-107.

27 

Khurana S, Raina H, Pappas V, et al. Effects of deoxycholylglycine, a conjugated secondary bile acid, on myogenic tone and agonist-induced contraction in rat resistance arteries. PLoS One 2012; 7: E32006.

28 

Stange J, Mitzner SR, Risler T, at al. Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS): clinical results of a new membrane-based blood purification system for bioartificial liver support. Artif Organs 1999; 23: 319-30.

29 

Evenepoel P, Maes B, Wilmer A, et al. Detoxifying capacity and kinetics of the molecular adsorbent recycling system. contribution of the different inbuilt filters. Blood Puri. 2003; 21: 244-52.

30 

Sorkine P, Ben Abraham R, Szold O, et al. Role of the Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS) in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic liver failure. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 1332-6.

31 

Schmidt LE, Sørensen VR, Svendsen LB, et al. Hemodynamic changes during a single treatment with the molecular adsorbents recirculating system in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 1034-9.

32 

Awad SS, Swaniker F, Magee J, et al. Results of a phase i trial evaluating a liver support device utilizing albumin dialysis. Surgery 2001; 130: 354-62.

33 

Jalan R, Sen S, Steiner C, et al. Extracorporeal liver support with molecular adsorbents recirculating system in patients with severe acute alcoholic hepatitis. J Hepatol 2003; 38: 24-31.

34 

Jalan R, Williams R. The inflammatory basis of intracranial hypertension in acute liver failure. J Hepatol 2001; 34: 940-2.

35 

Murphy MG, Jollimore C, Crocker JF, Her H. Beta-oxidation of [1-14C] palmitic acid by mouse astrocytes in primary culture: effects of agents implicated in the encephalopathy of Reye’s syndrome. J Neurosci Res 1992; 33: 445-54.

36 

Gadour E, Hassan Z. Meta-analysis and systematic review of liver transplantation as an ultimate treatment option for secondary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology Rev 2022; 17: 1-8.

37 

Rao KV, Norenberg MD. Cerebral energy metabolism in hepatic encephalopathy and hyperammonemia. Metab Brain Dis 2001; 16: 67-78.

Copyright: © 2024 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.