Abstract
The present narrative review on albumin dialysis provides evidence-based and expert opinion guidelines for clinicians caring for adult patients with different types of liver failure. The review was prepared by an expert panel of 13 members with liver and ntensive care expertise in extracorporeal liver support therapies for the management of patients with liver failure. The coordinating committee developed the questions according to their importance in the management of patients with liver failure. For each indication, experts conducted a comprehensive review of the literature aiming to identify the best available evidence and assessed the quality of evidence based on the literature and their experience. Summary statements and expert’s recommendations covered all indications of albumin dialysis therapy in patients with liver failure, timing and intensity of treatment, efficacy, technical issues related to the device and safety. The panel supports the data from the literature that albumin dialysis showed a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, refractory pruritus, renal function, reduction of cholestasis and jaundice. However, the trials lacked to show a clear beneficial effect on overall survival. A short-term survival benefit at 15 and 21 days respectively in acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure has been reported in recent studies. The technique should be limited to patients with a transplant project, to centers experienced in the management of advanced liver disease. The use of extracorporeal albumin dialysis could be beneficial in selected patients with advanced liver diseases listed for transplant or with a transplant project. Waiting future large randomized controlled trials, this panel experts’ statements may help careful patient selection and better treatment modalities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Extracorporeal albumin dialysis is the most studied and used system worldwide. It showed a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, refractory pruritus, renal function, reduction of cholestasis and jaundice. The technique is safe, and its use should be limited to centers experienced in the management of advanced liver disease and to patients with a transplant project. Panel experts’ statements reported in this manuscript may help careful patient selection and better treatment modalities. |
Introduction
Twenty years after the birth of a novel concept in hemodialysis, extracorporeal albumin dialysis (ECAD) is still currently the main artificial liver support used worldwide. Albumin dialysis devices, linked to a dialysis machine, allowed a great capacity of removal of both hydrosoluble and albumin-binding molecules, drugs and toxins which are often increased in patients with advanced liver disease [1]. Among three currently available artificial liver support devices, the molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS™, Baxter International Inc., Deerfield, Il, USA), the fractionated plasma separation and adsorption system Prometheus™ (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany), and the single pass albumin dialysis, MARS™ is the most studied and used system worldwide [1, 2]. More recently, plasma exchange has shown a major clinical interest in patients with liver failure.
MARS™ has been applied in various types of liver failure: acute liver failure (ALF), acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), liver dysfunction and liver failure after liver transplantation (LTx) and after major hepatectomy, refractory pruritus, drug overdose and secondary liver dysfunction in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Albumin dialysis with MARS™ has been used in various departments: medical ICU, surgical ICU, nephrology, hepatology, transplant centers and very rarely in ambulatory patients; this could explain in part, differences in practical clinical use. Despite that numerous trials, reviews and meta-analyses [3,4,5,6] on the effect of ECAD on short- and medium-term survival has been published, there is still neither a clear consensus on the profile of eligible patients nor on the optimal treatment protocol. In critically-ill patients, multiorgan support therapies (MOST) may provide simultaneous and combined support to failing organ systems [7]. Considering current and future developments of MOST, refining indications of albumin dialysis and modalities of treatment of critically ill patients with end-stage liver disease and organ dysfunction, i.e., ALF and ACLF, are here provided.
Methods
Selection and coordination of the expert panel
The coordinating committee composed of three experts in extracorporeal liver support invited all other panel members to establish an expert opinion panel to address clinical guidance on the use of extracorporeal albumin dialysis in patients with liver failure. The members were selected from different countries based on their large experience in conducting main trials on artificial liver support therapies and their expertise in the management of critically ill patients with liver failure.
The working group of 13 international experts (hepatologists, surgeons, intensivists, and nephrologists) individually performed a comprehensive review of the literature, searching for most relevant articles related to their domain and summarized their findings. Search was performed using Pubmed, Medline and Embase databases from January 2000 to May 31, 2019. Articles were selected using text words including mainly: albumin, artificial liver support, liver failure, acute liver failure, acute on chronic liver failure, albumin dialysis, molecular adsorbent recirculating system, fractionated plasma separation and adsorption, single pass albumin dialysis, hemadsorption, plasma exchange. Only English language studies were included. Main indications and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large retrospective comparative and non-comparative trials of clinical interest on albumin dialysis with MARS are illustrated in Table 1. As liver support use and benefit, through various indications, are supported by limited evidence, it might have been difficult to achieve group consensus. Hence, other methods such GRADE or DELPHI used to establish guidelines with strong recommendations may be inappropriate to apply to the current document. A modified Delphi process was employed to establish statements in this position paper. The scientific committee generated a list of clinical questions focused on the following list of clinical questions in different situation of liver failure:
1- What is the rationale for the use of albumin dialysis in liver support therapy?
2- Which patients are eligible for albumin liver dialysis?
3- What is the optimal timing of albumin liver dialysis in disease course?
4- What are the best technical and practical conditions of use of albumin liver dialysis?
5- How should patients undergoing albumin liver dialysis be monitored considering safety issues?
These questions were discussed in the context of relevant clinical syndromes (ALF, decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF, refractory pruritus, hypoxic liver injury, post-hepatectomy liver failure, graft dysfunction after LTx and other rare diseases). Each expert elaborated in his field of expertise summary statements based on the relevant paper in the literature and suggested recommendations to the above predefined questions based on perceived importance to patients for clinical decision-making. The panel experts met twice via a virtual conference to discuss the statements. The final statements were modified based on discussions and feedback from all the experts until consensus was obtained. Statements were classified according to the quality of evidence graded following a simplified adaptation of the GRADE system (EASL clinical practice guidelines), as high (data derived from multiple RCTs), moderate (data derived from a single RCT or multiple comparative and non-comparative studies) or low (data derived from retrospective observational studies); the grade of recommendation (wording associated with the grade of recommendation) strong (“must” or “should” or “Experts recommends”) weak (“can, “may” or “Experts suggests”) [8].
The rationale for albumin dialysis uses in liver support therapy
Human serum albumin metabolism
Human serum albumin (HSA) is a water-soluble 67 kDa protein, negatively charged at neutral pH, exclusively synthesized by the hepatocytes and has a prolonged half-life of approximately 20 days [9]. HSA is an important transport molecule for a variety of fatty acids, lipophilic toxins, hormones, vitamins, metals, metabolites,and drugs [10, 11] (Supplemental Fig. 1).
The total intravascular 120 g amount of albumin circulate through the organism and are exchanged with 240 g albumin in the extravascular space at a 4–5% per hour rate. HSA escapes the blood by fenestrated capillaries, such in the sinusoidal endothelium, e.g., in the liver and to a small extent in the glomerular filter. Organs with continuous endothelium (except the brain) display the 60 kDa glycoprotein receptor gp60 (albondin) which leads to internalization and caveolin-dependent transcytosis [12, 13]. Albumin also escapes by pinocytosis involving the membranal neonatal Fc receptor FcRn which binds it in endosomes for transcytosis [14], a process that is faster for cargo-carrying albumin [15]. The recycling of albumin from the extracapillary space via the lymphatic system and the recycling from glomerular filtered albumin by receptor complex formation with cubilin and megalin [13, 14] contribute to a long half-life and allow for up to 28 trips during the lifetime [10]. A therapeutic approach to acute and chronic liver failure including hepatorenal syndrome is the removal of such “albumin-bound toxins” (ABTs) by means of extracorporeal techniques based on the principles of adsorption, dialysis, and plasma filtration. Therapeutic plasma exchange and various forms of plasma adsorption have been explored as extracorporeal liver support therapies [16, 17].
Albumin dialysis-based therapy
ECAD using MARS™ device is a hemodialysis-like technique to facilitate the semi-selective removal of ABTs. To the contrary of standard hemodialysis, the dialysate fluid is enriched with HSA as a scavenger for ABTs. The method has higher selectivity than plasma exchange as the dialysis membranes used greatly exclude molecules larger than 30 kD. The mechanism of action comprises the detachment of ABTs from HSA, intermittent binding to the dialysis membrane, directed surface diffusion of ABTs towards the dialysate site of the dialysis membrane, detachment, and binding to dialysate albumin. The driving force is a transmembrane concentration gradient for the ABTs between the blood and dialysate space. To maintain this gradient, dialysate albumin is constantly replaced in the dialysate space of the dialyzer by fresh albumin (Fig. 1).
MARS™ uses three different fluid compartments, i.e., the blood circuit, an albumin circuit and a regular dialysate circuit (Fig. 1). It can be performed intermittently (typically for 6–8 h per day) or continuously. The blood flow rate is 150–250 ml/min, depending on the hemodynamic status of the patient. The dialysate albumin, pumped with 150 ml/min, is online-regenerated by dialysis against a bicarbonate-buffered dialysate, followed by sequential passage through a charcoal and an anion exchanger column. Either regional citrate or systemic heparin is used as an anticoagulant [18].
ECAD using MARS™ in different indications of liver failure
ECAD has been used in most situations of liver failure (Fig. 2) as a rescue therapy or a bridge to transplantation or recovery of acute liver decompensation presenting with progressive cholestasis. The place of liver support therapy in patients with liver failure and its objective are illustrated in Fig. 3. In most indications, patients with liver failure require a clinical and biological assessment, screening for etiology, infection and other decompensating events, management, and optimization of medical treatment prior to use of liver support therapy. The aim of ECAD is to provide local and systemic environment for liver regeneration. The timing of MARS™ indication, should consider the fibrosis stage severity of the liver disease, the remaining liver function and the potential of liver regeneration (Fig. 4) in addition to the presence of multiple organ failures. The perspective of LTx as a curative therapy should be discussed with the transplant team.
Acute liver failure
Acute loss of liver function results in a devastating and life-threatening condition. It is related to high circulating levels of endogenous harmful molecules that escape from the splanchnic area into the systemic circulation. Some of these compounds act like toxins such as ammonia, others are bigger in size, are lipophilic in nature and have a large distribution volume. These latter molecules mainly consist of proinflammatory cytokines and damage-associated molecular proteins (DAMPs) that are released from the failing and necrotic liver [16]. The lack of urea synthesis with hyperammonemia, together with release of DAMPS, causes a “endogenous intoxication syndrome” with development of multiple organ failure. In this fragile medical situation, it would be highly desirable to have a procedure that ensures rapid purification of the blood for both hydrophilic and lipophilic substances to reverse the critical condition.
ECAD with the MARS™ device in ALF ensured both albumin dialysis and hemodialysis, and was shown to be safe and to reduce the circulating levels of both water-soluble and lipophilic substances such as ammonia, aromatic amino acids, creatinine, amino-transaminases, bilirubin and various proinflammatory cytokines [19,20,21]. This blood-cleaning effect of MARS™ resulted in alleviation of hepatic encephalopathy [21, 22] and systemic circulatory shock, but it remained unclear if and how MARS™ affected nitrogen turnover and the levels of DAMPS.
Though it is likely that MARS™ therapy made patients with ALF less intoxicated, the question is whether MARS™ may improve survival [19,20,21, 23, 24]. Only one RCT was carried out to address this question in patients with ALF. The study could not demonstrate a survival benefit with MARS™ (n = 53) compared to a control group (n = 49) that received the same kind of standard medical therapy, at 6 months and 1 year (i.e., 85% in the MARS™ arm vs. 76% in the control arm at 6 months, and 83% vs. 76% at 1 year, respectively). In patients with paracetamol-related ALF, the 6-month survival rate was 68.4% (CI 43.5–86.4%) with conventional treatment and 85.0% (CI 61.1–96%) with MARS (p = 0.46). Subgroup analyses of transplant-free survival at 6 months (19% in MARS™-treated patients vs. 27% in controls) also found no significant difference. However, it is important to note that all patients were only enrolled into the study if they were considered candidates for emergency LTx. This narrow inclusion criteria caused a central and critical problem in the interpretation of study results since two-thirds of the included patients were grafted before the planed number of interventions with MARS™ could be implemented, i.e. the median time to grafting was only 16 h [19]. In support of this view, a secondary analysis showed that the dosing of MARS™ influenced outcome: survival was significantly improved in patients who received ≥ 3 MARS™ sessions (n = 16), compared to those who received < 3 sessions (n = 88). This significant signal suggests that MARS™ therapy may be of value to patients with ALF who were not listed for emergency LTx. This finding is comparable with a similar study in patients with ALF where blood cleaning with plasmapheresis was shown to improve the survival of patients who were not candidates for LTx [16].
Interestingly, the data provided by the FULMAR study [19] suggested that liver support with ≥ 3 MARS™ sessions may be considered for patients with ALF who are not candidates for emergency LTx, due to definitive or temporary contraindications. This is especially true in countries with a short transplant waiting time from listing to LTx, until a graft becomes available. On the other hand, initiation of MARS™ therapy may indeed be important in situations where rapid LTx is not an option due to shortage of donor organs [19].
Another important issue to note is that MARS™ sessions may have an optimal effect if initiated early during ALF, when hepatic encephalopathy becomes clinically overt.
In a multicenter study from the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group registry, 104 ALF patients who received MARS™ were propensity-scored matched to 416 controls. The multivariable conditional logistic regression adjusting for ALF etiology (acetaminophen: n = 248; vs non-acetaminophen: n = 272), age, vasopressor support, international normalized ratio, King’s College Criteria, and propensity score showed that MARS™ was significantly associated with increased 21-day transplant-free survival [25]. Treatment with MARS™ has been associated with significant improvements (post vs pre) in hemodynamics, creatinine, lactate and ammonia particularly in acetaminophen-ALF [25].
High volume plasma exchange (HVPE)
In patients with ALF, HVPE for three days was compared to standard medical treatment (SMT), in a multicenter RCT of 182 patients. The study demonstrated an improvement in overall hospital survival (58.7% vs. 47.8%; HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.36–0.86; p = 0.008). HVPE prior to transplantation did not improve survival compared with patients who received SMT alone (CI 0.37–3.98; p = 0.75). The survival of those patients who fulfilled poor prognostic criteria but were not listed for transplantation due to contraindications (such as severe psychiatric disease or medical comorbidity) was significantly higher in those who received HVPE (n = 28) as compared to those in receipt of SMT alone (n = 36) [16].
Summary statements |
---|
In patients with ALF, extra-corporeal albumin liver dialysis: |
Is associated with a significant improvement of 21-day survival in acetaminophen ALF etiology |
Is not associated with a significant improvement of 6- and 12-months survival. |
Is not beneficial at late stages of ALF, when multiple organ failure is already expressed |
Is contraindicated in patients with an ongoing uncontrolled severe sepsis. |
In patients with ALF, HVPE: |
Is associated with an improvement in overall hospital survival and transplant-free survival |
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
HVPE may be considered as a bridge to LT in ALF patients (moderate evidence) |
ECAD may be considered as a bridging therapy in patients meeting the criteria and waiting for liver transplantation particularly in acetaminophen patients (moderate evidence) |
ECAD is preferably to be started at an early stage of hepatic encephalopathy (grade 2–3) once the criteria for liver transplantation are met (moderate evidence) |
ECAD Is preferably administered in three or more 8 h sessions to induce a significant improvement of hepatic encephalopathy and hemodynamics (moderate evidence) |
Decompensated cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure
The pathogenesis of decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF is extremely complex, with an incompletely known interplay of several mechanisms that are characteristically associated with a high incidence of organ dysfunction and failure. Excessive inflammation, strongly related with multiple organ failure, albumin dysfunction, immune-exhaustion and mitochondrial damage are especially intense in ACLF [26].
Several studies have shown that the MARS™ device removed significant amounts of various substances that accumulate in patients with ACLF such as bilirubin, bile acids, ammonia, protein breakdown products (aromatic amino acids, phenol, mercaptans), lactate, glutamine, mediators of oxidative stress, free fatty acids, endogenous benzodiazepines and pro-inflammatory cytokines [27]. MARS™ was also able to remove vasoactive mediators and to improve systemic and hepatic hemodynamics [28,29,30]. Stadlbauer et al. [31] showed that various cytokines were cleared from plasma by both MARS™ and Prometheus™, but neither system was able to change serum cytokine levels, probably reflecting the intensity of inflammation in ACLF patients.
The clinical effects of albumin dialysis in ACLF patients have been evaluated in several RCTs and meta-analyses [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The first study evaluated the effect of albumin dialysis in patients with type I hepatorenal syndrome [41]. In this small pilot study, 13 patients were randomized to receive either MARS™ (n = 8) or hemodiafiltration (n = 5). Patients allocated to the MARS™ group presented significant decreases in serum bilirubin and creatinine as compared with patients treated with hemodiafiltration. In addition, the 7-day survival rate was significantly better in MARS™-treated patients (27.5% vs. 0%). In an uncontrolled study in patients with hepatorenal syndrome unresponsive to vasoconstrictors, MARS™ therapy decreased nitric oxide plasma levels and serum creatinine, but without improving the glomerular filtration rate [43]. A second controlled study included 24 patients with ACLF that were randomly allocated to receive MARS™ or standard medical therapy (SMT) [40]. The primary endpoint was a 3-day stable reduction of serum bilirubin below 15 mg/dL. MARS™ therapy was significantly associated not only with a decrease in serum bilirubin levels but also with lower mortality. These results, however, should be interpreted cautiously because the trial was not designed to detect differences in mortality and the inclusion criteria were poorly defined. A third controlled trial evaluated the effects of MARS™ in patients with cirrhosis and severe hepatic encephalopathy [39]. Albumin dialysis significantly improved the recovery rate from hepatic encephalopathy as compared to SMT, which included conventional hemofiltration when indicated (58% vs. 37% at 72 h; p = 0.045). A large RCT, involved 189 patients with ACLF (RELIEF study) who were randomized to receive either MARS™ plus SMT (n = 95) or SMT alone (n = 94) [38]. The primary endpoint was 28-day survival. Patients in the MARS™ arm received up to ten 6–8 h sessions. Remarkably, the mean number of MARS™ sessions was 6.5 and the median time under MARS™ therapy was only 42 h. At day 4, a stronger decrease in serum creatinine (p = 0.02) and bilirubin (p = 0.001) was observed in patients treated with MARS™. Improvement of hepatic encephalopathy was also more frequent in the MARS™ arm. These beneficial effects on intermediate variables were not translated to an improvement of 28-day survival, which was comparable in both groups in intention-to-treat and per protocol population analyses. After adjusting for confounders, a significant beneficial effect of MARS™ on survival was not observed either. The MELD score and hepatic encephalopathy at admission and the increase in serum bilirubin at day 4 were independent predictors of mortality. Severe adverse events were similar in both groups, a fact that has been observed across other studies. However, non-clinically relevant bleeding episodes were more frequent in MARS™-treated patients in the RELIEF study [38].
In the HELIOS trial, a large multicenter RCT performed in Europe, using the fractionated plasma separation and adsorption (FPSA) (Prometheus® system, Fresenius Medical Care AG, Hamburg, Germany), 145 patients with acute decompensation of a chronic liver disease were recruited. ACLF was defined as cirrhotic patients with a Child–Pugh score > 10 and a bilirubin > 5 mg/dL. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the probabilities of survival on day 28 were 66% in the FPSA group and 63% in the control group (p = 0.70); on day 90, they were 47% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.35). The study showed that the approach was safe and well tolerated, although there was no overall significant survival benefit [42].
The results of conventional meta-analyses are heterogeneous. While some studies suggested a lack of effect of artificial liver support on ACLF survival [35, 36], other suggested a beneficial effect [37]. Two studies have evaluated this issue considering retrospectively the new ACLF definition. Gerth et al. [24] assessed the impact of MARS™ in a case–control study in patients with ACLF using the CANONIC study definition [44]. Interestingly, the authors excluded patients with respiratory failure. The study suggested that MARS™ may improve short-term survival and benefit to patients with more severe disease. Bañares et al. [32] evaluated, in a meta-analysis of individual patient data from three larger RCTs [38,39,40], the potential impact of the number of MARS™ sessions on survival. Age, MELD score, ACLF grade and the number of MARS™ sessions independently predicted survival, indicating that the intensity of the MARS™ therapy may influence clinical outcomes. Therefore, future studies should be designed considering risk stratification and intensity of the therapy. There are currently no available evidence-based data indicating how albumin dialysis should be used in clinical practice. However, the literature suggests several relevant points:
-
-Albumin dialysis should be performed in reference sites with trained personnel experienced in the use of extracorporeal support in patients with advanced liver diseases.
-
-A careful evaluation of bacterial infection and a high suspicion for its diagnosis and aggressive therapy are mandatory before starting MARS™ treatment.
-
-Safety evaluation is essential considering specifically coagulation disturbances. Therefore, frequent clinical evaluation and testing coagulation parameters are mandatory.
Efficacy and safety of the treatment and the decision to continue or to stop the treatment should be evaluated on an individual basis.
Summary statements: |
---|
ECAD using MARS™ device: |
Induces significant changes in systemic and portal hemodynamics and in vasoactive mediators, bile acids and bilirubin levels, but without changes in albumin function and inflammatory profile |
Improves hepatic encephalopathy and renal failure in patients with ACLF |
Is not associated with a significant improvement of 28–90 days survival in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis and ACLF |
MARS™ may improve short-term survival (14 days) and efficacy appears to be correlated with patient selection and intensity of treatment |
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF, ECAD using MARS™ device: |
Should be considered in patients with hepatic encephalopathy refractory to 24–48 h of SMT (moderate evidence) |
May be considered in patients with hepato-renal syndrome not responding to terlipressin plus albumin as a bridge to liver transplantation (low evidence) |
Should be considered in patients with progressive cholestasis secondary to ACLF (moderate evidence) |
Should not be considered in patients with either severe infections, sepsis, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome or ACLF-OF grade > 3 (low evidence) |
The decision to stop or to continue extracorporeal therapy after a minimum of three sessions should be based on a careful individual clinical assessment of efficacy and safety (moderate evidence) |
Refractory pruritus
Pruritus is a common and very upsetting symptom in patients with cholestasis. Itch has a marked negative impact on the quality of life of these patients and, when severe, it can lead to suicide ideation. Therefore, intractable pruritus is an indication for liver transplantation [45, 46].
Both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommend a stepwise approach in the management of cholestatic pruritus [45, 46]. This symptom can usually be alleviated using cholestyramine or colestipol. The next step for the management of pruritus is rifampicin, which is widely used as a second-line treatment and it has a notable effect in most cases [47]. Other agents such as naltrexone [48] and sertraline [49] reduce cholestatic itching but the effects are less prominent and constant. Studies indicates that fibrates [50] and an ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor [51] alleviate cholestatic itch. Older therapeutic interventions including phototherapy, charcoal hemoperfusion, plasmapheresis, external diversion of bile, and ileal bypass have been used in patients with cholestasis and intractable pruritus [52]. Some of latter techniques are far from being clearly favorable.
In patients with cholestatic pruritus, the ECAD with MARS™ has beneficial effects in relieving itch for a prolonged period. In a series of 20 patients with resistant pruritus, albumin dialysis resulted in a significant decrease of itch assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) [53]. Compared with baseline values, the VAS decreased by 72% immediately after treatment, and by 51% after 1 month. Pruritus decreased in all, but one patient and the overall itch improvement was reported satisfactory by 15 patients. Other studies also showed marked improvements in pruritus and quality of life after MARS™. The safety and efficacy of “out-patient” albumin dialysis using MARS™ in the treatment of intractable pruritus in cholestatic patients referred for liver transplantation was assessed in 15 patients [54]. In this study, three 6-h MARS™ sessions were performed per admission. Treatment was associated with immediate and complete response in 11 patients (two patients had a partial response, and two patients had no response). Mean VAS values decreased significantly while patients’ quality of life improved. The median duration of acceptable relief in responders was 3 months. The efficacy of MARS™ on pruritus has also been reported in both adult and pediatric patients with cholestatic conditions and after LTx [55,56,57,58,59,60]. No significant adverse events have been described, including no serious infections, bleeding or hemodynamic changes.
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
MARS™ treatment: |
May be considered in patients with liver cholestasis and refractory pruritus not responding to SMT (moderate evidence) |
Is preferably started when refractory pruritus seriously affects quality of life (low evidence) |
Is preferably administered in two to three 6 to 8-h sessions to induce a significant pruritus relief (low evidence) |
Hypoxic liver injury
Hypoxic liver injury (HLI) is one of the most common types of liver failure and it is observed in up to 15% of critically ill patients. HLI is usually defined as a massive increase of aminotransferase levels (many studies used a cut-off of ≥ 20 times the upper limit of normal) in the context of cardiac, circulatory or respiratory failure. Although other potential causes should be explored, patients in the ICU displaying a massive raise of aminotransferase levels should be considered as having HLI until the opposite has not been proven [61].
Extracorporeal support therapies represent a cornerstone of therapeutic measures in HLI. Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy was associated with improved survival in a large observational study of patients with HLI [62]. Albumin dialysis systems like MARS™ can remove albumin-bound substances in addition to conventional renal replacement properties. Case reports [63] and one RCT reported a trend toward an improved survival [64] in MARS™-treated patients with HLI. Preliminary results of another RCT showed that MARS™ significantly reduced the need for vasopressor support in patients with HLI [65]. However, future larger studies are needed to validate these results and to compare MARS™ with other dialysis devices.
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients with HLI: |
There are no sufficient available data to support the use of MARS™ (moderate evidence) |
ECAD using MARS™ device may be considered in patients with HLI-induced ALF (low evidence) |
Post-hepatectomy liver failure
Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is a life-threatening complication following partial hepatectomy. The main reason is a small-for-size situation leaving the patient with an insufficient amount of liver parenchyma to maintain sufficient liver function and facilitate liver regeneration at the same time. However, even complications in the early post-operative course might harm liver regeneration leading to liver failure [66].
So far, there is, besides LTx with all its limitations, no definitive treatment available for these patients. In patients with ALF or ACLF, the MARS™ system demonstrated several effects on patient physiology that might be beneficial in PHLF also (e.g. decrease of portal pressure, decrease of pro-inflammatory cytokines) [67,68,69]. A bi-institutional retrospective review of patients treated with MARS™ due to PHLF suggested a tendency for favorable patient outcome if patients were treated early (first week following hepatectomy) and more frequently (5 consecutive treatment cycles) [70]. So far, only one prospective pilot trial investigated the effect of MARS™ in PHLF according to a systematic treatment protocol [71]. The key features of this trial were early (treatment decision on post-operative day 5, based on Balzan 50:50 criteria [72]) a frequent, consecutive treatment (between 5 and 7 full treatment cycles) and exclusion of untreated surgical complications. Despite promising results in this trial (feasibility, liver function improvement and unexpectedly low mortality rates compared to a historical control in some patients), current evidence for the use of MARS™ in PHLF is weak. In a systematic review, a survival benefit related to MARS™ treatment was found in patients with primary PHLF [73]. However, only five studies with a total of 34 patients have investigated specifically the role of MARS™ in PHLF. Even though there were no concerns regarding safety and feasibility, a general treatment recommendation could not be given. Still, there are unsolved questions like the start of treatment in the post-operative course, number, duration of sessions and, most importantly, adequate patient selection.
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients with PHLF: |
ECAD using MARS™ device is not recommended, except in prospective clinical trials (moderate evidence) |
Acute or chronic graft failure after liver transplantation
Only case reports or small retrospective cohorts have been reported on the use of MARS™ in different situations of graft failure after LTx. These consisted of the use of MARS™ either, in early complications post-LTx such as primary non-function or primary dysfunction of the graft, and in few exceptional cases, intra-operatively during the “anhepatic” phase, or in late complications post-LTx of graft dysfunction mainly related to chronic rejection or primary disease recurrence or other rare graft failures. In all reports, the graft function was severely impaired like situations of ALF and ACLF, severe cholestasis and refractory pruritus reported above in the non-transplant setting. The MARS™ was often used as a rescue therapy or as a bridge therapy awaiting liver retransplantation with different results.
In the absence of prospective trials and the extreme difficulty to perform RCTs in this setting, albumin dialysis might be considered only when such situations are associated with liver failure and in those patients listed for liver retransplantation.
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients with acute or chronic graft failure after LTx: |
Albumin dialysis might be considered in individual cases, after careful assessment based on similar criteria as in the non-transplant population, and only in patients listed for liver retransplantation (low evidence) |
Drug overdose
Few reports on the use of albumin dialysis in drug overdose with calcium channel inhibitors (amlodipine, diltiazem, verapamil), benzodiazepines, fentanyl, phenytoin or intoxication related to mushroom poisoning, cupper (acute form of Wilson disease), with hemodynamic improvement and clinical success [74,75,76,77].
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients with drug overdose of compound highly linked to albumin: |
Albumin dialysis might be considered in individual cases/if no therapeutic alternative and the drug/poison has a high degree of albumin binding (low evidence) |
Practical, technical and safety aspects
Technical issues
Technical issues can arise at any place of the different parts of the dialysis circuit. The time for setting up of the dialysis and MARS circuits range from 60 to 120 min according to the expertise of the nursing team. The system is primed with albumin and saline through specific tubes and filters and needs close monitoring. By using a double-lumen catheter of at least 13 Fr in a central venous access and within the range of the recommended pump flows, frequent pressure alarms can be avoided as well as early circuit failure. During MARS™ treatment mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance usually remain stable or improve, both in ACLF and ALF. However, hypotension during treatment may occur and can be improved by either reducing blood and circuit flow speed, or ultrafiltration or, preferably, providing modest volume expansion or low-dose noradrenalin. Air or blood leakage are very rare. In vitro, the presence of specific stabilizers in different albumin solutions affects the stability of albumin binding properties [78]. In vivo, there is no evidence for a relevant clinical effect between different albumin solutions.
Anticoagulation
The most frequent technical complication of MARS™ is clotting in the extracorporeal circuit. The complex balance of coagulation in patients with liver failure and the lack of appropriate monitoring parameters make it difficult to use anticoagulation in patients under extracorporeal therapy. Clotting results in a premature discontinuation of the MARS™ session and loss of blood clearance efficacy. Different approaches have been described in small case series including unfractionated heparin with or without epoprostenol [79], heparin minimization [80] and regional citrate anticoagulation [81], without relevant differences between them. Unfractionated heparin is the standard anticoagulation regimen in many centers. Targets for anticoagulation are either activated partial thromboplastin time of 2–2.5 times the upper normal limit, or activated clotting time between 150 and 200 s. In very severe coagulation disorders, some studies have reported on MARS™ treatment without any anticoagulation. However, even with the use of anticoagulation, circuit clotting may occur in up to 23% of sessions [82, 83]. Regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) for periods of 6–8 h has been shown to be safe [82, 84, 85] and most effective to prevent clotting. In a retrospective series, the probability of filter survival for a given treatment session was 94% with RCA versus 82% with heparin anticoagulation. In experienced centers, RCA is the preferred strategy for MARS™ anticoagulation [85]. Running the blood and albumin pumps at 200 ml/min rather than 150 ml/min also reduces the risk of circuit clotting. Considering the risk of bleeding, different factors including the severity of liver disease, the etiology of liver disease (ALF, ACLF…), the presence of severe coagulation disorders, the circuit anticoagulation type and dosage (heparin, fractioned heparin, citrate…) might influence this risk. However, in the two mains large RCTs in ALF and ACLF (FULMAR and RELIEF), the risk of bleeding from any source didn’t differ from the standard medical treatment. Therapeutic guidance using viscoelastic tests is promising in other complex situations such as LTx [86] but has not been evaluated yet in the context of extracorporeal liver support.
Treatment intensity
Treatment intensity is determined by the number of hours for each treatment session and by the sequence and total number of treatment sessions. Treatment for more than 6 h offers no or little benefit in terms of blood clearance of ABTs [87]. Larger RCTs in ACLF and in ALF have reported treatment session spans of 6–8 and 8 h, respectively [19, 29, 38, 39]. The sequence and total number of treatment sessions varies depending on the indication and the aim of MARS™ therapy. In a recent meta-analysis, 165 patients with ACLF who received at least 5 sessions had a 30-day survival of 73.3% versus 58.5% in those who had less than 5 sessions (p = 0.041) [32]. In most studies of ACLF patients, 3 to 4 sessions were planned in the first 5 days and then continued depending on the response and clinical endpoint. In one RCT assessing MARS™ in ALF patients, transplant-free survival was 57.1% in patients receiving ≥ 3 sessions on consecutive days, versus 17% in those who received ≤ 2 sessions [19].
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
Albumin dialysis is not recommended in patients with high-risk of bleeding (platelets counts < 40.000/mm3, INR > 2.5 and fibrinogen < 1 g/L), because of the risk of fibrinolysis and DIC) (low evidence) |
Circuit anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin should be used to avoid circuit and membrane clotting (moderate evidence) |
Regional citrate anticoagulation could be an alternative option to unfractionated heparin use, is safe and is associated with decreased circuit clotting (moderate evidence) |
6–8 h is the recommended treatment duration of each session (moderate evidence) |
In patients with ACLF, ≥ 5 treatment sessions should be attempted in the first 7 to 10 days, the first 3 sessions being administered on consecutive days (moderate evidence) |
In ALF every attempt should be made to reach ≥ 3 consecutive treatment days (moderate evidence) |
Monitoring and safety aspects
Patients receiving albumin dialysis for hepatic failure should be treated in an ICU. Alarm settings and frequency of evaluation of clinical parameters are not different from those used for liver failure patients receiving other types of extracorporeal support therapies.
Albumin dialysis is considered as a safe procedure. However, complications may occur. Air embolism is very uncommon, and the risks associated with this complication are not different from the risks associated with any central venous access for other purposes than albumin dialysis. Thrombocytopenia and drop in fibrinogen levels are common. The expected decrease before and after a treatment session is 15–20% of baseline value. It is recommended not to initiate MARS™ treatment with values below 50,000/μL and less then 1 g/L of fibrinogen. Bleeding and thrombosis, though infrequent, need to be monitored. If bleeding occurs, it usually manifests as oozing from the venous access. Thrombosis of the venous access occurs in about 1–2% of cases. While some degree of decrease in hemoglobin, leukocytes or increase in prothrombin time is expected, these changes have not been reported to be of clinical significance.
If RCA is chosen, the patient needs close metabolic monitoring for citrate accumulation or hypocalcemia. Citrate net overload usually manifests itself as metabolic alkalosis, while true citrate accumulation due to incomplete citrate metabolism results in metabolic acidosis with potentially severe hypocalcemia [88]. A safe monitoring approach for citrate toxicity includes determination of the ratio of total to ionized plasmatic calcium before the start of albumin dialysis (normal < 2.5), after about 2 h of dialysis and around the end of the session.
ECAD can influence drug clearance. Regarding antifungals, case reports have described 2.5 to four-fold increased clearance of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion or amphotericin B lipid complex with undecided clinical relevance, while no effect on drug elimination of anidulafungin has been observed [89, 90]. In the case of antibacterial medications, continuous infusion or an extended-infusion strategy of piperacillin–tazobactam will likely prevent the expected steep decline in plasma concentration if a standard infusion of 30 min would be used [91, 92]. Finally, according to one case report, albumin dialysis has no effect on tacrolimus elimination [93].
Experts’ recommendations |
---|
In patients undergoing MARS™ treatment: |
Standard monitoring of patients’ hemodynamics, clinical and biological parameters, like other extra-corporeal therapies, is mandatory (high evidence) |
Antimicrobial medications choice and dosing need to be adapted (when the effect of albumin dialysis on their clearance is known) (moderate evidence) |
Future directions, research agenda
The Advanced Organ Support system (ADVOS™) represents a new type of albumin dialysis and was introduced in 2013. In contrast to MARS™, the albumin circuit in ADVOS™ is regenerated using both temperature and pH changes; the ADVOS™ showed comparable results to MARS™ in a retrospective comparative in vitro analysis with a good safety [94, 95].
The DIALIVE™ is a novel liver dialysis device, that replaces dysfunctional albumin and removes pathogen and damage associated molecular patterns in patients with liver failure. A phase 2 RCT, in patients with ACLF, has been presented at the EASL 2021 congress and showed improvement in ACLF grading and safety of the device (NCT03065699).
Albutec device is an adaptation of the MARS™ device using a new filter system is currently in clinical trials (IDE G200071).
Plasma exchange demonstrated in a RCT, improvement in transplant free survival in patients with ALF, together with improvement of SIRS and SOFA score [16]. A large international phase 3 RCT to determine the efficacy and safety of plasma exchange is currently ongoing in patients with ACLF (NCT03702920).
Hemadsorption using either the Oxiris® or the Cytosorb® membranes has been used mainly in critically ill septic patients. Studies including small cohorts or case reports have shown some effects in cirrhotic patients (reduction in bilirubin level or hepatic encephalopathy) of clinical interest but this needs to be confirmed in prospective trials.
Other liver support devices, mainly used in eastern countries in patients with ALF and ACLF due to HBV infection or reactivation, combined two or three different dialysis system that included CVV-HDF, plasma exchange, MARS™ and other devices has been reported, but never evaluated in prospective trials [96].
Conclusion
In the long wait for further clinical development of plasma exchange, new artificial liver support devices, bioartificial liver devices, mesenchymal stem cells therapies and other exploratory prototypes, ECAD with MARS™ device, is a safe procedure and could be integrated in the management of critically ill patients with liver impairment. The MARS™ combined to renal dialysis machine, in the context of MOST, allowed improvement of different manifestations of liver impairment. The different statements and recommendations elaborated by the expert panel based on the literature and their experience would help a careful and practical selection of patients in terms of indications, timing and treatment modalities for the use of MARS™. ECAD should be reserved to centers experienced in the management of advanced liver disease either listed for transplant or with a transplant project, and/or to clinical trials.
Abbreviations
- ABT:
-
Albumin-bound toxin
- ACLF:
-
Acute-on-chronic liver failure
- ALF:
-
Acute liver failure
- DAMP:
-
Damage-associated molecular proteins
- HE:
-
Hepatic encephalopathy
- HLI:
-
Hypoxic liver injury
- HSA:
-
Human serum albumin
- ICU:
-
Intensive care unit
- LTx:
-
Liver transplantation
- MARS™:
-
Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System
- MELD:
-
Model of end-stage liver disease (score)
- MOST:
-
Multiorgan support organ support therapies
- PHLF:
-
Post-hepatectomy liver failure
- RCA:
-
Regional citrate anticoagulation
- HVPE:
-
High volume plasma exchange
- RCT:
-
Randomized controlled trial
- SMT:
-
Standard medical therapy
- VAS:
-
Visual analogue scale
References
Saliba F, Samuel D (2015) Artificial liver support: a real step forward. Minerva Med 106:35–43
Camus C, Locher C, Saliba F, Goubaux B, Bonadona A, Lavayssiere L, Paugam C, Quinart A, Barbot O, Dharancy S, Delafosse B, Pichon N, Barraud H, Galbois A, Veber B, Cayot S, Souche B (2020) Outcome of patients treated with molecular adsorbent recirculating system albumin dialysis: a national multicenter study. JGH Open Open Access J Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:757–763
Kanjo A, Ocskay K, Gede N, Kiss S, Szakács Z, Párniczky A, Mitzner S, Stange J, Hegyi P, Molnár Z (2021) Efficacy and safety of liver support devices in acute and hyperacute liver failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep 11:4189
Alshamsi F, Alshammari K, Belley-Cote E, Dionne J, Albrahim T, Albudoor B, Ismail M, Al-Judaibi B, Baw B, Subramanian RM, Steadman R, Galusca D, Huang DT, Nanchal R, Al Quraini M, Yuan Y, Alhazzani W (2020) Extracorporeal liver support in patients with liver failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 46:1–16
Tandon R, Froghi S (2021) Artificial liver support systems. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 36:1164–1179
Ocskay K, Kanjo A, Gede N, Szakács Z, Pár G, Erőss B, Stange J, Mitzner S, Hegyi P, Molnár Z (2021) Uncertainty in the impact of liver support systems in acute-on-chronic liver failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care 11(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00795-0
Ronco C, Ricci Z, Husain-Syed F (2019) From multiple organ support therapy to extracorporeal organ support in critically ill patients. Blood Purif 48:99–105
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926
Bernardi M, Angeli P, Claria J, Moreau R, Gines P, Jalan R, Caraceni P, Fernandez J, Gerbes AL, O’Brien AJ, Trebicka J, Thevenot T, Arroyo V (2020) Albumin in decompensated cirrhosis: new concepts and perspectives. Gut 69:1127–1138
Peters TJ (1995) All about albumin: biochemistry, genetics, and medical applications. Academic Press, San Diego
Quinlan GJ, Martin GS, Evans TW (2005) Albumin: biochemical properties and therapeutic potential. Hepatology 41:1211–1219
Sleep D (2015) Albumin and its application in drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 12:793–812
Merlot AM, Kalinowski DS, Richardson DR (2014) Unraveling the mysteries of serum albumin-more than just a serum protein. Front Physiol 5:299
Bern M, Sand KM, Nilsen J, Sandlie I, Andersen JT (2015) The role of albumin receptors in regulation of albumin homeostasis: implications for drug delivery. J Control Release Off J Control Release Soc 211:144–162
Galis Z, Ghitescu L, Simionescu M (1988) Fatty acids binding to albumin increases its uptake and transcytosis by the lung capillary endothelium. Eur J Cell Biol 47:358–365
Larsen FS, Schmidt LE, Bernsmeier C, Rasmussen A, Isoniemi H, Patel VC, Triantafyllou E, Bernal W, Auzinger G, Shawcross D, Eefsen M, Bjerring PN, Clemmesen JO, Hockerstedt K, Frederiksen HJ, Hansen BA, Antoniades CG, Wendon J (2016) High-volume plasma exchange in patients with acute liver failure: an open randomised controlled trial. J Hepatol 64:69–78
O’Grady JG, Gimson AE, O’Brien CJ, Pucknell A, Hughes RD, Williams R (1988) Controlled trials of charcoal hemoperfusion and prognostic factors in fulminant hepatic failure. Gastroenterology 94:1186–1192
Mitzner S, Klammt S, Stange J, Schmidt R (2006) Albumin regeneration in liver support-comparison of different methods. Ther Apher Dial Off Peer-Rev J Int Soc Apher Jpn Soc Apher Jpn Soc Dial Ther 10:108–117
Saliba F, Camus C, Durand F, Mathurin P, Letierce A, Delafosse B, Barange K, Perrigault PF, Belnard M, Ichai P, Samuel D (2013) Albumin dialysis with a noncell artificial liver support device in patients with acute liver failure: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 159:522–531
Ilonen I, Koivusalo AM, Repo H, Höckerstedt K, Isoniemi H (2008) Cytokine profiles in acute liver failure treated with albumin dialysis. Artif Organs 32:52–60
Schmidt LE, Tofteng F, Strauss GI, Larsen FS (2004) Effect of treatment with the Molecular Adsorbents Recirculating System on arterial amino acid levels and cerebral amino acid metabolism in patients with hepatic encephalopathy. Scand J Gastroenterol 39:974–980
Kantola T, Koivusalo AM, Höckerstedt K, Isoniemi H (2008) The effect of molecular adsorbent recirculating system treatment on survival, native liver recovery, and need for liver transplantation in acute liver failure patients. Transpl Int 21:857–866
Camus C, Lavoué S, Gacouin A, Compagnon P, Boudjéma K, Jacquelinet C, Thomas R, Le Tulzo Y (2009) Liver transplantation avoided in patients with fulminant hepatic failure who received albumin dialysis with the molecular adsorbent recirculating system while on the waiting list: impact of the duration of therapy. Ther Apher Dial Off Peer-Rev J Int Soc Apher Jpn Soc Apher Jpn Soc Dial Ther 13:549–555
Gerth HU, Pohlen M, Thölking G, Pavenstädt H, Brand M, Wilms C, Hüsing-Kabar A, Görlich D, Kabar I, Schmidt HH (2017) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS) in acute liver injury and graft dysfunction: results from a case-control study. PLoS One 12:e0175529
MacDonald AJ, Subramanian RM, Olson JC, Speiser JL, Durkalski-Mauldin VL, Abraldes JG, Bigam DL, Flynn MM, Rapaka B, Shropshire BM, Vora RS, Karvellas CJ (2022) Use of the molecular adsorbent recirculating system in acute liver failure: results of a multicenter propensity score-matched study. Crit Care Med 50(2):286–295
Arroyo V, Moreau R, Jalan R (2020) Acute-on-chronic liver failure. N Engl J Med 382:2137–2145
Sen S, Davies NA, Mookerjee RP, Cheshire LM, Hodges SJ, Williams R, Jalan R (2004) Pathophysiological effects of albumin dialysis in acute-on-chronic liver failure: a randomized controlled study. Liver Transpl Off Publ Am Assoc Study Liver Dis Int Liver Transpl Soc 10:1109–1119
Catalina MV, Barrio J, Anaya F, Salcedo M, Rincón D, Clemente G, Bañares R (2003) Hepatic and systemic haemodynamic changes after MARS in patients with acute on chronic liver failure. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver 23(Suppl 3):39–43
Laleman W, Wilmer A, Evenepoel P, Elst IV, Zeegers M, Zaman Z, Verslype C, Fevery J, Nevens F (2006) 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 (Lond, Engl) 10:R108
Sen S, Mookerjee RP, Cheshire LM, Davies NA, Williams R, Jalan R (2005) Albumin dialysis reduces portal pressure acutely in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. J Hepatol 43:142–148
Stadlbauer V, Krisper P, Aigner R, Haditsch B, Jung A, Lackner C, Stauber RE (2006) Effect of extracorporeal liver support by MARS and Prometheus on serum cytokines in acute-on-chronic liver failure. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 10:R169
Banares R, Ibanez-Samaniego L, Torner JM, Pavesi M, Olmedo C, Catalina MV, Albillos A, Larsen FS, Nevens F, Hassanein T, Schmidt H, Heeman U, Jalan R, Moreau R, Arroyo V (2019) Meta-analysis of individual patient data of albumin dialysis in acute-on-chronic liver failure: focus on treatment intensity. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 12:1–12
Khuroo MS, Khuroo MS, Farahat KL (2004) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system for acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl Off Publ Am Assoc Study Liver Dis Int Liver Transpl Soc 10:1099–1106
Liu Y, Kang YZ, Xia WZ, Zhou HC, Wang Y, Gao Y (2009) Artificial and bioartificial liver support systems for acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure: a meta-analysis. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 29:1529–1532
Stutchfield BM, Simpson K, Wigmore SJ (2011) Systematic review and meta-analysis of survival following extracorporeal liver support. Br J Surg 98:623–631
Vaid A, Chweich H, Balk EM, Jaber BL (2012) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system as artificial support therapy for liver failure: a meta-analysis. ASAIO J 58:51–59
Zheng Z, Li X, Li Z, Ma X (2013) Artificial and bioartificial liver support systems for acute and acute-on-chronic hepatic failure: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Exp Ther Med 6:929–936
Banares R, Nevens F, Larsen FS, Jalan R, Albillos A, Dollinger M, Saliba F, Sauerbruch T, Klammt S, Ockenga J, Pares A, Wendon J, Brunnler T, Kramer L, Mathurin P, de la Mata M, Gasbarrini A, Mullhaupt B, Wilmer A, Laleman W, Eefsen M, Sen S, Zipprich A, Tenorio T, Pavesi M, Schmidt HH, Mitzner S, Williams R, Arroyo V (2013) Extracorporeal albumin dialysis with the molecular adsorbent recirculating system in acute-on-chronic liver failure: the RELIEF trial. Hepatology 57:1153–1162
Hassanein TI, Tofteng F, Brown RS Jr, McGuire B, Lynch P, Mehta R, Larsen FS, Gornbein J, Stange J, Blei AT (2007) Randomized controlled study of extracorporeal albumin dialysis for hepatic encephalopathy in advanced cirrhosis. Hepatology 46:1853–1862
Heemann U, Treichel U, Loock J, Philipp T, Gerken G, Malago M, Klammt S, Loehr M, Liebe S, Mitzner S, Schmidt R, Stange J (2002) Albumin dialysis in cirrhosis with superimposed acute liver injury: a prospective, controlled study. Hepatology 36:949–958
Mitzner SR, Stange J, Klammt S, Risler T, Erley CM, Bader BD, Berger ED, Lauchart W, Peszynski P, Freytag J, Hickstein H, Loock J, Löhr JM, Liebe S, Emmrich J, Korten G, Schmidt R (2000) Improvement of hepatorenal syndrome with extracorporeal albumin dialysis MARS: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Liver Transpl Off Publ Am Assoc Study Liver Dis Int Liver Transpl Soc 6:277–286
Kribben A, Gerken G, Haag S, Herget-Rosenthal S, Treichel U, Betz C, Sarrazin C, Hoste E, Van Vlierberghe H, Escorsell A, Hafer C, Schreiner O, Galle PR, Mancini E, Caraceni P, Karvellas CJ, Salmhofer H, Knotek M, Gines P, Kozik-Jaromin J, Rifai K (2012) Effects of fractionated plasma separation and adsorption on survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Gastroenterology 142(782–789):e783
Wong F, Raina N, Richardson R (2010) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system is ineffective in the management of type 1 hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis with ascites who have failed vasoconstrictor treatment. Gut 59:381–386
Moreau R, Jalan R, Gines P, Pavesi M, Angeli P, Cordoba J, Durand F, Gustot T, Saliba F, Domenicali M, Gerbes A, Wendon J, Alessandria C, Laleman W, Zeuzem S, Trebicka J, Bernardi M, Arroyo V (2013) Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a distinct syndrome that develops in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 144(1426–1437):1437.e1421–1429
European Association for the Study of the Liver (2017) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: the diagnosis and management of patients with primary biliary cholangitis. J Hepatol 67:145–172
Lindor KD, Bowlus CL, Boyer J, Levy C, Mayo M (2019) Primary biliary cholangitis: 2018 practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 69:394–419
Bachs L, Parés A, Elena M, Piera C, Rodés J (1992) Effects of long-term rifampicin administration in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 102:2077–2080
Wolfhagen FH, Sternieri E, Hop WC, Vitale G, Bertolotti M, Van Buuren HR (1997) Oral naltrexone treatment for cholestatic pruritus: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Gastroenterology 113:1264–1269
Mayo MJ, Handem I, Saldana S, Jacobe H, Getachew Y, Rush AJ (2007) Sertraline as a first-line treatment for cholestatic pruritus. Hepatology 45:666–674
Reig A, Sesé P, Parés A (2018) Effects of bezafibrate on outcome and pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis with suboptimal ursodeoxycholic acid response. Am J Gastroenterol 113:49–55
Hegade VS, Kendrick SF, Dobbins RL, Miller SR, Thompson D, Richards D, Storey J, Dukes GE, Corrigan M, Oude Elferink RP, Beuers U, Hirschfield GM, Jones DE (2017) Effect of ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor GSK2330672 on pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover, phase 2a study. Lancet 389:1114–1123
Kremer AE, Oude Elferink RP, Beuers U (2011) Pathophysiology and current management of pruritus in liver disease. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 35:89–97
Parés A, Herrera M, Avilés J, Sanz M, Mas A (2010) Treatment of resistant pruritus from cholestasis with albumin dialysis: combined analysis of patients from three centers. J Hepatol 53:307–312
Leckie P, Tritto G, Mookerjee R, Davies N, Jones D, Jalan R (2012) ‘Out-patient’ albumin dialysis for cholestatic patients with intractable pruritus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 35:696–704
Macia M, Avilés J, Navarro J, Morales S, García J (2003) Efficacy of molecular adsorbent recirculating system for the treatment of intractable pruritus in cholestasis. Am J Med 114:62–64
Parés A, Cisneros L, Salmerón JM, Caballería L, Mas A, Torras A, Rodés J (2004) Extracorporeal albumin dialysis: a procedure for prolonged relief of intractable pruritus in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1105–1110
Bellmann R, Graziadei IW, Feistritzer C, Schwaighofer H, Stellaard F, Sturm E, Wiedermann CJ, Joannidis M (2004) Treatment of refractory cholestatic pruritus after liver transplantation with albumin dialysis. Liver Transpl Off Publ Am Assoc Study Liver Dis Int Liver Transpl Soc 10:107–114
Lemoine M, Revaux A, Francoz C, Ducarme G, Brechignac S, Jacquemin E, Uzan M, Ganne-Carrie N (2008) Albumin liver dialysis as pregnancy-saving procedure in cholestatic liver disease and intractable pruritus. World J Gastroenterol 14:6572–6574
Javouhey E, Ranchin B, Lachaux A, Boillot O, Martin X, Floret D, Cochat P (2009) Long-lasting extracorporeal albumin dialysis in a child with end-stage renal disease and severe cholestasis. Pediatr Transplant 13:235–239
Schaefer B, Schaefer F, Wittmer D, Engelmann G, Wenning D, Schmitt CP (2012) Molecular Adsorbents Recirculating System dialysis in children with cholestatic pruritus. Pediatr Nephrol 27:829–834
Horvatits T, Drolz A, Trauner M, Fuhrmann V (2019) Liver injury and failure in critical illness. Hepatology 70:2204–2215
Drolz A, Horvatits T, Roedl K, Rutter K, Staufer K, Haider DG, Zauner C, Heinz G, Schellongowski P, Kluge S, Trauner M, Fuhrmann V (2016) Outcome and features of acute kidney injury complicating hypoxic hepatitis at the medical intensive care unit. Ann Intensive Care 6:61
Drolz A, Saxa R, Scherzer T, Fuhrmann V (2011) Extracorporeal artificial liver support in hypoxic liver injury. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver 31(Suppl 3):19–23
El Banayosy A, Kizner L, Schueler V, Bergmeier S, Cobaugh D, Koerfer R (2004) First use of the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System technique on patients with hypoxic liver failure after cardiogenic shock. ASAIO J 50:332–337
Fuhrmann V, Herkner H, Roedl K, Drolz A, Horvatits T, Horvatits K, Jarczak D, Zauner C, Schellongowski P, Heinz G, Trauner M, Kluge S (2019) Behandlung von sekundärem Leberversagen mit dem MARS®-System - eine randomisiert-kontrollierte Studie. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book Behandlung von sekundärem Leberversagen mit dem MARS®-System - eine randomisiert-kontrollierte Studie. City, pp 11–12
van Mierlo KM, Schaap FG, Dejong CH, Olde Damink SW (2016) Liver resection for cancer: new developments in prediction, prevention and management of postresectional liver failure. J Hepatol 65:1217–1231
Catalina MV, Barrio J, Anaya F, Salcedo M, Rincon D, Clemente G, Banares R (2003) Hepatic and systemic haemodynamic changes after MARS in patients with acute on chronic liver failure. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver 23(Suppl 3):39–43
Sen S, Mookerjee RP, Cheshire LM, Davies NA, Williams R, Jalan R (2005) Albumin dialysis reduces portal pressure acutely in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. J Hepatol 43:142–148
Stadlbauer V, Krisper P, Aigner R, Haditsch B, Jung A, Lackner C, Stauber RE (2006) Effect of extracorporeal liver support by MARS and Prometheus on serum cytokines in acute-on-chronic liver failure. Crit Care 10:R169
Gilg (2016) Albumin dialysis with mars in post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF): experiences from two HPB centers. Surg Curr Res 6: 252:1–6
Gilg S, Sparrelid E, Saraste L, Nowak G, Wahlin S, Strömberg C, Lundell L, Isaksson B (2018) The molecular adsorbent recirculating system in posthepatectomy liver failure: results from a prospective phase I study. Hepatol Commun 2:445–454
Balzan S, Belghiti J, Farges O, Ogata S, Sauvanet A, Delefosse D, Durand F (2005) The “50-50 criteria” on postoperative day 5: an accurate predictor of liver failure and death after hepatectomy. Ann Surg 242:824–828
Sparrelid E, Gilg S, van Gulik TM (2020) Systematic review of MARS treatment in post-hepatectomy liver failure. HPB (Oxf) 22:950–960
Beyls C, Malaquin S, Huette P, Mary A, Besserve P, Roger PA, Bernasinski M, Guilbart M, Abou-Arab O, Dupont H, Mahjoub Y (2021) Hemodynamic impact of molecular adsorbent recirculating system in refractory vasoplegic shock due to calcium channel blocker poisoning. Int J Artif Organs 44(12):944–951
Pichon N, Dugard A, Clavel M, Amiel JB, François B, Vignon P (2012) Extracorporeal albumin dialysis in three cases of acute calcium channel blocker poisoning with life-threatening refractory cardiogenic shock. Ann Emerg Med 59:540–544
Hassoun J, Hammer N, Magini G, Ponte B, Ongaro M, Rougemont AL, Goossens N, Frossard JL, Spahr L (2021) Management of acute Wilsonian hepatitis with severe hemolysis: a successful combination of chelation and MARS dialysis. Case Rep Hepatol 2021:5583654
Faybik P, Hetz H, Baker A, Bittermann C, Berlakovich G, Werba A, Krenn CG, Steltzer H (2003) Extracorporeal albumin dialysis in patients with Amanita phalloides poisoning. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver 23(Suppl 3):28–33
De Bruyn T, Meijers B, Evenepoel P, Laub R, Willems L, Augustijns P, Annaert P (2012) Stability of therapeutic albumin solutions used for molecular adsorbent recirculating system-based liver dialysis. Artif Organs 36:29–41
Krisper P, Tiran B, Fliser D, Haditsch B, Stadlbauer V, Otto R, Ernst T, Kretschmer U, Stauber RE, Haller H, Holzer H, Manns MP, Rifai K (2010) Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation with heparin versus heparin plus epoprostenol in patients undergoing extracorporeal liver support with Prometheus. Artif Organs 34:84–88
Tan HK, Yang WS, Chow P, Lui HF, Choong HL, Wong KS (2007) Anticoagulation minimization is safe and effective in albumin liver dialysis using the molecular adsorbent recirculating system. Artif Organs 31:193–199
Faybik P, Hetz H, Mitterer G, Krenn CG, Schiefer J, Funk GC, Bacher A (2011) Regional citrate anticoagulation in patients with liver failure supported by a molecular adsorbent recirculating system. Crit Care Med 39:273–279
Meijers B, Laleman W, Vermeersch P, Nevens F, Wilmer A, Evenepoel P (2012) A prospective randomized open-label crossover trial of regional citrate anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation free liver dialysis by the Molecular Adsorbents Recirculating System. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 16:R20
Tan HK (2004) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). Ann Acad Med Singap 33:329–335
Sponholz C, Matthes K, Rupp D, Backaus W, Klammt S, Karailieva D, Bauschke A, Settmacher U, Kohl M, Clemens MG, Mitzner S, Bauer M, Kortgen A (2016) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system and single-pass albumin dialysis in liver failure—a prospective, randomised crossover study. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 20:2
Dyla A, Mielnicki W, Bartczak J, Zawada T, Garba P (2017) Effectiveness and safety assessment of citrate anticoagulation during albumin dialysis in comparison to other methods of anticoagulation. Artif Organs 41:818–826
Thai C, Oben C, Wagener G (2020) Coagulation, hemostasis, and transfusion during liver transplantation. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 34:79–87
Evenepoel P, Laleman W, Wilmer A, Claes K, Kuypers D, Bammens B, Nevens F, Vanrenterghem Y (2006) Prometheus versus molecular adsorbents recirculating system: comparison of efficiency in two different liver detoxification devices. Artif Organs 30:276–284
Schneider AG, Journois D, Rimmelé T (2017) Complications of regional citrate anticoagulation: accumulation or overload? Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 21:281
Weiler S, Vogelsinger H, Joannidis M, Dunzendorfer S, Bellmann R (2011) Influence of albumin dialysis on pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion and amphotericin B lipid complex. Artif Organs 35:667–671
Aguilar G, Azanza JR, Sádaba B, Badenes R, Ferrando C, Delgado C, Hernández J, Parra MA, Puig J, Carbonell JA, Navarro D, Belda FJ (2014) Pharmacokinetics of anidulafungin during albumin dialysis. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 18:422
Personett HA, Larson SL, Frazee EN, Nyberg SL, El-Zoghby ZM (2015) Extracorporeal elimination of piperacillin/tazobactam during molecular adsorbent recirculating system therapy. Pharmacotherapy 35:e136-139
Ruggero MA, Argento AC, Heavner MS, Topal JE (2013) Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS(®)) removal of piperacillin/tazobactam in a patient with acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure. Transpl Infect Dis Off J Transplant Soc 15:214–218
Personett HA, Larson SL, Frazee EN, Nyberg SL, Leung N, El-Zoghby ZM (2014) Impact of molecular adsorbent recirculating system therapy on tacrolimus elimination: a case report. Transplant Proc 46:2440–2442
Falkensteiner C, Kortgen A, Leonhardt J, Bauer M, Sponholz C (2021) Comparison of albumin dialysis devices molecular adsorbent recirculating system and ADVanced Organ Support system in critically ill patients with liver failure—a retrospective analysis. Ther Apher Dial Off Peer-Rev J Int Soc Apher Jpn Soc Apher Jpn Soc Dial Ther 25:225–236
Fuhrmann V, Weber T, Roedl K, Motaabbed J, Tariparast A, Jarczak D, de Garibay APR, Kluwe J, Boenisch O, Herkner H, Kellum JA, Kluge S (2020) Advanced organ support (ADVOS) in the critically ill: first clinical experience in patients with multiple organ failure. Ann Intensive Care 10:96
Tan EX, Wang MX, Pang J, Lee GH (2020) Plasma exchange in patients with acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 26:219–245
Schmidt LE, Wang LP, Hansen BA, Larsen FS (2003) Systemic hemodynamic effects of treatment with the molecular adsorbents recirculating system in patients with hyperacute liver failure: a prospective controlled trial. Liver Transpl Off Publ Am Assoc Study Liver Dis Int Liver Transpl Soc 9:290–297
Novelli G, Rossi M, Pretagostini M, Pugliese F, Ruberto F, Novelli L, Nudo F, Bussotti A, Corradini S, Martelli S, Berloco PB (2005) One hundred sixteen cases of acute liver failure treated with MARS. Transplant Proc 37:2557–2559
El Banayosy A, Cobaugh D, Pauly A, Kizner L, Korfer R (2007) Albumindialyse bei patienten mit sekundärem leberversagen nach kariogenem schock. Intensivemed 44:149–157
Gerth HU, Pohlen M, Thölking G, Pavenstädt H, Brand M, Hüsing-Kabar A, Wilms C, Maschmeier M, Kabar I, Torner J, Pavesi M, Arroyo V, Banares R, Schmidt HHJ (2017) Molecular adsorbent recirculating system can reduce short-term mortality among patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure—a retrospective analysis. Crit Care Med 45:1616–1624
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Bruno Trumbic, MD (Paris, France) for assistance in assembling the manuscript. A special dedication to Roger Williams CBE, for his great devotion to liver research and his contribution and inspiration to the development of devices for liver support therapy.
Funding
The study was part of an Investigator-Initiated Research (IIR) Grant Program from Baxter International Inc. Baxter® was not involved in the conception of the study, the expert’s selection and drafting of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FS, SJ and JT appointed the expert panel, organized the meetings and coordinated the panel group, drafted and wrote the final version of the manuscript. All authors participated individually to the draft writing, the consensus and approved the statements and final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
FS has received speaker’s honoraria and/or research grants from Novartis, Astellas, Chiesi, Gilead, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Neovie, Biotest and Baxter. RB has received speaker’s honoraria and/or research grants from Gilead, abbvie, Janssen, Gore Baxter. FL has nothing to declare. AW has no conflict of interest. AP has received grant funding, personal fees, and advisory board fees from Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Genfit; advisory board fees and fees for teaching from Novartis; and personal fees from CymaBay Therapeutics and Inova Diagnostics. SM has received speaker`s honoraria and/or research grants from Amgen, Astellas, Baxter, BMS/Pfizer, CytoSorbents, Pentracor, Vifor. JS is chairman of the board of Albutec GmbH. VF declare presentations for Fresenius, Baxter, ADVITOS, CSL-Behring, Merz, Advisory board. SG declare no conflict of interest. TH is consultant for DIALIVE. On advisory committee and received consultancy from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Malinckrodt, Merck, and Organovo. Received research grants from AbbVie, Allergan, Amarex/Cytodyn, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CARA, DURECT Corporation, Enanta, Galectin, Gilead, Grifols, Intercept, Merck, Mirum, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Sonic Incytes, and Terns Pharmaceuticals. DS received research grants Astellas and honoraria from Goliver and Biotest. JT, declare no conflict of interest. JT declares no conflict of interest. SJ declares consulting fees from Drager, Fresenius-Xenios, Medtronic, Mindray and Fisher & Paykel.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
134_2022_6802_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Supplemental figure 1. Molecular structure of human serum albumin and binding sites (adapted from Bernardi M. et al [9]). (PDF 2047 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saliba, F., Bañares, R., Larsen, F.S. et al. Artificial liver support in patients with liver failure: a modified DELPHI consensus of international experts. Intensive Care Med 48, 1352–1367 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06802-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06802-1