FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2002105502> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2002105502 endingPage "197" @default.
• W2002105502 startingPage "192" @default.
• W2002105502 abstract "The only therapeutic intervention of proven benefit for patients with advanced acute liver failure (ALF) is that of emergency liver transplantation (LT) [[1]O'Grady J. Acute liver failure.in: O'Grady J. Lake J. Howdle P. Comprehensive clinical hepatology. 1st ed. Mosby, London2000: 30.1-30.20Google Scholar]. However, there can be few more difficult decisions in hepatology than that to list and transplant a patient with ALF. Often it must be taken with limited clinical and background information and in the presence of rapid clinical deterioration, where delay could result in a patient becoming un-transplantable due to the development of clinical contra-indications. The risks of emergency transplantation in the context of evolving or established multiple organ failure (MOF) must be balanced against the possibility of survival with continued medical supportive care alone. The consequences of inaccurate selection for transplantation are huge; a false positive selection test will result in unnecessary transplantation in a patient who would otherwise survive with medical management, surgery with a 30–40% 1-year mortality and a lifetime of potentially dangerous immunosupression. A graft that could be used in elective transplantation will be lost and major, unnecessary expense incurred. The consequences of a false negative selection test are even greater, resulting in a missed transplant candidate and a likely preventable death. A variety of selection criteria are in use world-wide, and their comparative accuracy and ease of use are debated [2Riorden S. Williams R. Mechanisms of hepatocyte injury, multiorgan failure, and prognostic criteria in acute liver failure.Semin Liver Dis. 2003; 23: 203-216Crossref PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar, 3Lee W. Acute liver failure in the United States.Semin Liver Dis. 2003; 23: 217-226Crossref PubMed Scopus (317) Google Scholar, 4Fujiwara K. Mochida S. Indications and criteria for liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.J Gastroenterol. 2002; 37: 74-77Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 5Dhiman R. Seth A. Jain S. Chawla Y.K. Dilawari J.B. Prognostic evaluation of early indicators in fulminant hepatic failure by multivariate analysis.Dig Dis Sci. 1998; 43: 1311-1316Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar]. As with all diagnostic tests, the best evidence to support the use of particular criteria is from the confirmation of its performance in validation studies [[6]Sackett D.L. Straus S.E. Richardson W.S. Rosenberg W. Haynes R.B. Diagnosis and screening. 2nd ed. Evidence based medicine, how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, London2000Google Scholar]. However, the accurate assessment of these selection criteria in such studies is limited by the low methadologic quality of many of the series reported [[7]Bossuyt P. Reitsma J. Bruns D. Gatsonis C.A. Glasziou P.P. Irwig L.M. et al.Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.Br Med J. 2003; 326: 41-44Crossref PubMed Scopus (1142) Google Scholar]. Bias is introduced both by aspects of study design, and by the very nature of the condition under investigation. ALF is rare even in most transplantation centres, and consequently most reports are of small numbers of patients, usually unblinded and retrospective and over periods of a decade or more, during which time medical supportive management may have changed substantially. Further bias is frequently introduced by the inclusion of transplanted cases as ‘non-survivors’, an assumption which may be incorrect. All these sources of bias will tend to overestimate the accuracy of the selection criteria under study [[8]Lijmer J.G. Mol B.W. Heisterkamp S. Bonsel G.J. Prins M.H. van der Meulen J.H. Bossuyt P.M. Empirical evidence of design related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.J Am Med Assoc. 1999; 282: 1061-1066Crossref PubMed Scopus (1449) Google Scholar]. With these limitations in mind, the most commonly applied selection criteria will be discussed below. The Clichy criteria (Table 1a) were derived from the multivariate analysis of prognostically important variables in a cohort of 115 patients with fulminant hepatitis B infection, managed medically in the pre-transplantation era between 1972 and 1981 [[9]Bernuau J. Goudau A. Poynard T. Dubois F. Lesage G. Yvonnet B. et al.Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in fulminant hepatitis B.Hepatology. 1986; 6: 648-651Crossref PubMed Scopus (406) Google Scholar]. This analysis revealed age and factor V level to be the most important predictors of survival. Transplantation is recommended if in the presence of coma or confusion (equating to encephalopathy grades 3–4) with a factor V level <20% in patients under 30 years of age or <30% if over 30 years of age [[10]Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar]. In comparison to the Kings College Hospital (KCH) criteria, validation studies are scarce, but nonetheless the Clichy criteria are in use in much of Northern Europe. Their more widespread use has been limited by two main factors. Firstly, the expense and limited availability of factor V level measurement outside certain centres, and secondly that their derivation was from a cohort of patients with ALF resulting from a single aetiology. As will be discussed below, aetiology may play a major role in determining the outcome of the illness. Subsequent comparative studies have suggested performance in acetaminophen (paracetamol)-related disease to be inferior to that of the KCH criteria [[11]Izumi S. Langley P.G. Wendon J. Ellis A.J. Pernambuco R.B. Hughes R.D. Williams R. Coagulation factor V levels as a prognostic indicator in fulminant hepatic failure.Hepatology. 1996; 23: 1507-1511Crossref PubMed Google Scholar], and indeed limited in many patients with non-paracetamol-related disease [12Pauwels A. Mostefa-Kara N. Florent C. Levy V. Emergency transplantation for acute liver failure: evaluation of the London and Clichy criteria.J Hepatol. 1993; 17: 124-127Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (183) Google Scholar, 13Nevens F. Schepens D. Wilmer A. Evaluation of the Kings and Clichy criteria for the selection of OLTx in patients with non-paracetamol induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 28: 223AGoogle Scholar].Table 1aThe Clichy criteriaTransplantation if: - Coma and confusion (encephalopathy grade 3 or 4) and - Factor V<20% if under 30 years or - Factor V<30% if over 30 yearsSource: Ref. [10]Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar. Open table in a new tab Source: Ref. [10]Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar. In deriving the KCH criteria [[14]O'Grady J. Alexander G. Hayllar K. Williams R. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure.Gastroenterology. 1989; 97: 439-445Abstract PubMed Google Scholar], O'Grady examined prognostically important variables in a retrospective cohort of 588 patients managed medically during 1973–1985. The findings were subsequently validated in 175 patients with ALF treated between 1986 and 1987. Importantly, he recognised the role of both aetiology and mode of presentation in determining the possibility of recovery with medical supportive therapy alone. By example, in patients with acetaminophen-related ALF in whom the interval between the development of jaundice and onset of encephalopathy is short (a ‘hyper-acute’ presentation) survival with medical management may be surprisingly good. By contrast, other aetiologies such as ‘sero-negative’ hepatitis or drug-induced ALF and a more indolent or ‘sub-acute’ presentation are associated with a dismal survival without transplantation [[15]O'Grady J. Schalm S. Williams R. Acute liver failure: redefining the syndromes.Lancet. 1993; 342: 273-275Abstract PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar]. The KCH criteria therefore differentiate between patients with acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity and other causes of ALF (Table 1b) , and have been widely adopted [[16]Riordan S. Williams R. Use and validation of selection criteria for liver transplantation in acute liver failure.Liver Transpl. 2000; 6: 170-173Crossref PubMed Google Scholar].Table 1bThe Kings College criteriaNon-acetaminophen (paracetamol) aetiologyTransplantation if: - INR>6.7 or Any three of - Unfavourable aetiology (drug, seronegative) - Age <10 or >40 years - Acute/subacute presentation - Bilirubin >300 μmol/l - INR>3.5Acetaminophen aetiologyTransplantation if: - Arterial pH <7.3 after volume resuscitation or Concurrent findings of - Encephalopathy of grade III or above - Creatinine >300 μmol/l - INR>6.5Source: Ref. [14]O'Grady J. Alexander G. Hayllar K. Williams R. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure.Gastroenterology. 1989; 97: 439-445Abstract PubMed Google Scholar. Open table in a new tab Source: Ref. [14]O'Grady J. Alexander G. Hayllar K. Williams R. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure.Gastroenterology. 1989; 97: 439-445Abstract PubMed Google Scholar. More published data exist to support the use of the acetaminophen than the non-acetaminophen criteria. Studies relating to acetaminophen have recently been assessed and subjected to meta-analysis [[17]Bailey B. Amre D. Gaudreault P. Fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen poisoning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic criteria determining the need for liver transplantation.Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 299-305Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar], which confirmed many of the previously established impressions of their clinical performance (Table 2) . Firstly, that the criteria have a clinically acceptable specificity, the patient who fulfils the criteria is very likely to die without transplantation. Survival with medical management alone in this group is between 10 and 15% in most series [18Bernal W. Wendon J. Rela M. Heaton N. Williams R. Use and outcome of liver transplantation in acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 27: 1050-1055Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar, 19Mitchell I. Bihari D. Chang R. Wendon J. Williams R. Earlier identification of patients at risk from acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Crit Care Med. 1998; 26: 279-284Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 20Shakil A. Kramer D. Mazariegos G. Fung J.J. Rakela J. Acute liver failure: clinical features, outcome analysis, and applicability of prognostic criteria.Liver Transpl. 2000; 6: 163-169PubMed Google Scholar, 21Makin A. Wendon J. Williams R. A seven-year experience of severe acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity (1987–1993).Gastroenterology. 1995; 109: 1907-1916Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (286) Google Scholar]. Secondly, that their sensitivity is relatively limited in that a proportion of patients will die without fulfilling criteria and thus without prior identification and consideration as potential transplantation candidates [18Bernal W. Wendon J. Rela M. Heaton N. Williams R. Use and outcome of liver transplantation in acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 27: 1050-1055Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar, 19Mitchell I. Bihari D. Chang R. Wendon J. Williams R. Earlier identification of patients at risk from acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Crit Care Med. 1998; 26: 279-284Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar]. A third issue, not identified in the meta-analysis but shown to be of major importance in a number of clinical series is that the rate of clinical deterioration is so great that in almost 50% of patients fulfilling criteria, transplantation is never a realistic option either due to the presence of contra-indications to transplantation at the time of fulfilling criteria or to their development whilst awaiting a graft [18Bernal W. Wendon J. Rela M. Heaton N. Williams R. Use and outcome of liver transplantation in acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 27: 1050-1055Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar, 22O'Grady J. Wendon J. Tan K. Potter D. Cottam S. Cohen A.T. et al.Liver transplantation after paracetamol overdose.Br Med J. 1991; 303: 221-223Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar].Table 2Meta-analysis of performance of Kings College criteria for acetaminophenCriteriaNo. of studiesPooled sensitivity, % (95% CI)Pooled specificity, % (95% CI)Kings869 (63–75)92 (81–97)pH <7.3457 (44–68)89 (62–97)Combined355 (44–66)94 (90–98)Source: Ref. [17]Bailey B. Amre D. Gaudreault P. Fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen poisoning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic criteria determining the need for liver transplantation.Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 299-305Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar. Open table in a new tab Source: Ref. [17]Bailey B. Amre D. Gaudreault P. Fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen poisoning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic criteria determining the need for liver transplantation.Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 299-305Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar. In comparison to the acetaminophen data, there are fewer published studies evaluating the performance of the non-acetaminophen criteria and have been recently summarised [[2]Riorden S. Williams R. Mechanisms of hepatocyte injury, multiorgan failure, and prognostic criteria in acute liver failure.Semin Liver Dis. 2003; 23: 203-216Crossref PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar]. Their performance again shows acceptable specificity, but the most consistent finding of these studies is of a low negative predictive value (<0.6 in most studies), i.e. that if a patient does not fulfil the criteria, the probability that he or she will survive with medical management alone is limited. This is reflected by a greater proportion of deaths in patients who do not fulfil the criteria. To address the clinical problems with the use of established criteria and improve selection of transplant candidates, alternative or additional prognostic markers are required. An ideal prognostic marker in this setting would be simple to determine, could be rapidly, safely, accurately and reproducibly measured and its addition to other established criteria would identify patients earlier and result in an increase in sensitivity and negative predictive value without lowering specificity. To this end, a wide variety of blood markers have been proposed including factor VIII and V ratios [[23]Pereira L.M. Langley P.G. Hayllar K.M. Tredger J.M. Williams R. Coagulation factor V and VIII/V ratio as predictors of outcome in paracetamol induced fulminant hepatic failure: relation to other prognostic indicators.Gut. 1992; 33: 98-102Crossref PubMed Scopus (145) Google Scholar], serum levels of Gc protein [[24]Lee W.M. Galbraith R.M. Watt G.H. Hughes R.D. McIntire D.D. Hoffman B.J. Williams R. Predicting survival in fulminant hepatic failure using serum Gc protein concentrations.Hepatology. 1995; 21: 101-105PubMed Google Scholar], serial prothrombin times [[25]Harrison P.M. O'Grady J.G. Keays R.T. Alexander G.J. Williams R. Serial prothrombin time as prognostic indicator in paracetamol induced fulminant hepatic failure.Br Med J. 1990; 301: 964-966Crossref PubMed Scopus (145) Google Scholar], and arterial ketone body ratio [[26]Saibara T. Onishi S. Sone J. Yamamoto N. Shimahara Y. Mori K. et al.Arterial ketone body ratio as a possible indicator for liver transplantation in fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 1991; 51: 782-786Crossref PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar], although until recently, none had shown all these ideal characteristics. Practical difficulties may limit the utility of other investigations of potential prognostic value; though a liver volume of <1000 ml on CT scanning is associated with very poor survival [[27]Shakil A. Jones B. Lee R. Federle M.P. Fung J.J. Rakela J. Prognostic value of abdominal CT scanning and hepatic histopathology in patients with acute liver failure.Dig Dis Sci. 2000; 45: 334-339Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar], such imaging is frequently contra-indicated by the patients clinical condition. Similarly, though the extent of observed hepatic necrosis on liver biopsy may bear some relation to outcomes [27Shakil A. Jones B. Lee R. Federle M.P. Fung J.J. Rakela J. Prognostic value of abdominal CT scanning and hepatic histopathology in patients with acute liver failure.Dig Dis Sci. 2000; 45: 334-339Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar, 28Donaldson B.W. Gopinath R. Wanless I.R. Phillips M.J. Cameron R. Roberts E.A. et al.The role of transjugular liver biopsy in fulminant liver failure: relation to other prognostic indicators.Hepatology. 1993; 18: 1370-1376Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar], the biopsy procedure may be hazardous and histopathological heterogeneity may lead to misleading results on percutaneous or transjugular samples [[29]Hanau C. Munoz S. Rubin R. Histopathological heterogenetity in fulminant hepatic failure.Hepatology. 1995; 21: 345-351PubMed Google Scholar]. Two developments have recently been described in patients with acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity. Blood lactate has recently been shown to have a close relation to survival in ALF [[30]Bernal W. Donaldson N. Wyncoll D. Wendon J. Blood lactate as an early predictor of outcome in paracetamol-induced acute liver failure.Lancet. 2002; 359: 558-563Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (377) Google Scholar]. Elevations in blood lactate in this setting are likely to reflect the combination of increased systemic production in multiple organ dysfunction and impaired hepatic clearance following hepatic injury. The addition of blood lactate measurements to the KCH criteria improved sensitivity and time of identification without appreciable reduction in sensitivity. Similarly, hyper-phosphateamia has recently been reported to be an accurate early predictor of poor outcome in severe acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity [[31]Schmidt L. Dalhoff K. Serum phosphate is an early predictor of outcome in severe acetaminohen-induced hepatotoxicity.Hepatology. 2002; 36: 659-665Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar]. In this setting, it may reflect the combination of renal impairment and a lack of substrate utilisation due to a failure of hepatic regeneration. Again, the addition of phosphate measurements to the KCH criteria appeared to improve sensitivity and time of identification without appreciable reduction in specificity, although the 98% overall test accuracy initially reported has not been reproduced elsewhere [[32]Bernal W. Wendon J. More on serum phosphate in acute liver failure.Hepatology. 2003; 38: 533-534Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar]. The introduction of both lactate and phosphate measurements into selection criteria should, however, await confirmation of their performance in further appropriately conducted validation studies. The overall results of LT in patients with ALF have improved significantly since the introduction of the technique. However, the outcome remains worse than those transplanted for chronic liver disease (Fig. 1) . This is primarily as a result of the high early post-operative mortality in patients transplanted for ALF. Most deaths in this period are now as a result of sepsis and MOF [33Tessier G. Villeneuve E. Villeneuve J.-P. Etiology and outcome of acute liver failure: experience from a liver transplantation centre in Montreal.Can J Gastroenterol. 2002; 16: 672-676PubMed Google Scholar, 34Farmer D. Anselmo D. Ghobrial R. Yersiz H. McDiarmid S.V. Cao C. et al.Liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure. Experience with more than 200 patients over a 17 year period.Ann Surg. 2003; 237: 666-676PubMed Google Scholar], with early neurologic deaths [[10]Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar] becoming less common, perhaps as a consequence of increased intra- and peri-operative monitoring of intracranial pressure and improvements in the management of cerebral oedema. Two interacting factors are likely to influence the outcome of transplantation in this setting. These are the severity of pre-transplant illness of the recipient, and the nature of the graft used. The critically ill recipient has a particular vulnerability to the consequences, particularly infectious, of poor early graft function. The more unwell a patient is, either in terms of the severity of encephalopathy or overall MOF, the less likely that transplantation will be performed and that the surgery will be successful [10Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar, 18Bernal W. Wendon J. Rela M. Heaton N. Williams R. Use and outcome of liver transplantation in acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 27: 1050-1055Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar, 35Devlin J. Wendon J. Heaton N. Tan K.C. Williams R. Pretransplant clinical status and outcome of emergency transplantation for acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1995; 21: 1018-1024Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. A review of 100 transplants performed for ALF at KCH showed that the severity of MOF at the time of transplantation was single best predictor of patient survival [[35]Devlin J. Wendon J. Heaton N. Tan K.C. Williams R. Pretransplant clinical status and outcome of emergency transplantation for acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1995; 21: 1018-1024Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. This severity varies by the aetiology of ALF, and is greatest in those with acetaminophen-related disease [[35]Devlin J. Wendon J. Heaton N. Tan K.C. Williams R. Pretransplant clinical status and outcome of emergency transplantation for acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1995; 21: 1018-1024Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. In a series of over 300 patients listed for LT in Scandinavia, deaths whilst awaiting LT were more than twice as common in those with acetaminophen-related disease than in those patients listed for ALF due to other aetiologies [[36]Brandsaeter B. Hockerstedt K. Friman S. Ericzon B.G. Kirkegaard P. Isoniemi H. et al.Fulminant hepatic failure; outcome after listing for highly urgent liver transplantation—12 years experience in the nordic countries.Liver Transpl. 2002; 8: 1055-1062Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. In a series from KCH [[18]Bernal W. Wendon J. Rela M. Heaton N. Williams R. Use and outcome of liver transplantation in acetaminophen induced acute liver failure.Hepatology. 1998; 27: 1050-1055Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar], 45% of patients fulfilling KCH criteria with acetaminophen-related disease had such severe MOF that listing for transplantation was not an option; more than 90% of these patients died. Furthermore, 35% of the patients who were listed for transplantation did not undergo surgery and in the majority of cases this was because of the development of clinical contra-indications whilst awaiting a graft. The second major factor shown in most series to be important in determining outcome is that of the nature and quality of the graft used. This is illustrated by the early Hospital Paul Brousse experience where the first available graft was used for patients with ALF, regardless of size, quality or blood group compatibility [[10]Bismuth H. Samuel D. Castaing D. Adam R. Saliba F. Johann M. et al.Orthotopic liver transplantation in fulminant and subfulminant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience.Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 109-119Crossref PubMed Scopus (278) Google Scholar]. Analysis of 116 transplants showed strong effects of graft factors upon patient and graft survival, with markedly inferior outcomes in those patients receiving marginal, size reduced or ABO incompatible grafts. A successful outcome is most likely to occur where recipient and graft are individually matched; a sick patient will do best if they receive an optimal graft. A difficult balance must be struck between the risk of delaying transplantation until an appropriate graft is available, with the likelihood of further clinical deterioration before that time, and the earlier acceptance of sub-optimal grafts that may be associated with a poorer outcome. Auxiliary liver transplantation (ALT) has many theoretical attractions for ALF. In this technique, a partial liver graft is placed either heterotopically or orthotopically while leaving all or part of the native liver in situ. With resolution of the insult causing ALF, the native liver may subsequently regenerate allowing withdrawal of immunosuppression and graft atrophy or removal, improving quality of life and avoiding long term side-effects and costs. This may be possible in more than half of all ALT recipients [37van Hoek B. de Boer J. Boudjema K. Williams R. Corsmit O. Terpstra O.T. Auxiliary versus orthotopic liver transplantation for acute liver failure.J Hepatol. 1999; 30: 699-705Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar, 38Chenard-Neu M.-P. Boudjema K. Bernuau J. Degott C. Belghiti J. Cherqui D. et al.Auxiliary liver transplantation: regeneration of the native liver and outcome in 30 patients with fulminant hepatic failure—a multicentre European Study.Hepatology. 1996; 23: 1119-1127PubMed Google Scholar, 39Durand F. Belghitti J. Handra-Luca A. Francoz C. Sauvanet A. Marcellin P. et al.Auxiliary liver transplantation for fulminant hepatitis B: results from a series of six patients with special emphasis on regeneration and recurrence of hepatitis B.Liver Transpl. 2002; 8: 710-717Google Scholar]. A technically demanding procedure, initial reports of ALT showed relatively high rates of anastamotic complications and retransplantation [[37]van Hoek B. de Boer J. Boudjema K. Williams R. Corsmit O. Terpstra O.T. Auxiliary versus orthotopic liver transplantation for acute liver failure.J Hepatol. 1999; 30: 699-705Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar], although recent outcomes have improved substantially. In part this is likely to relate to improvements in surgical technique, but also from patient selection. Most centres would now consider ALT only in patients <40 years of age, with limited and stable extra-hepatic organ dysfunction and with the availability of an optimal graft. The prediction of those patients in whom regeneration of the native liver is likely to occur is difficult, and interestingly appears to bear little relation to the histological extent of hepatic necrosis or the presence of fibrosis or regenerative nodules [[38]Chenard-Neu M.-P. Boudjema K. Bernuau J. Degott C. Belghiti J. Cherqui D. et al.Auxiliary liver transplantation: regeneration of the native liver and outcome in 30 patients with fulminant hepatic failure—a multicentre European Study.Hepatology. 1996; 23: 1119-1127PubMed Google Scholar]. The best predictors appear to be patient age and the aetiology and mode of presentation of ALF. Regeneration seems to occur best in young patients who have a hyper-acute presentation and a viral or acetaminophen aetiology, the group in whom spontaneous survival is also most likely [15O'Grady J. Schalm S. Williams R. Acute liver failure: redefining the syndromes.Lancet. 1993; 342: 273-275Abstract PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar, 36Brandsaeter B. Hockerstedt K. Friman S. Ericzon B.G. Kirkegaard P. Isoniemi H. et al.Fulminant hepatic failure; outcome after listing for highly urgent liver transplantation—12 years experience in the nordic countries.Liver Transpl. 2002; 8: 1055-1062Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar, 38Chenard-Neu M.-P. Boudjema K. Bernuau J. Degott C. Belghiti J. Cherqui D. et al.Auxiliary liver transplantation: regeneration of the native liver and outcome in 30 patients with fulminant hepatic failure—a multicentre European Study.Hepatology. 1996; 23: 1119-1127PubMed Google Scholar]. The maturity of this technique and its medical supportive care is well illustrated by recent reports of successful outcomes of ALT using non-heartbeating donors [[40]Muiesan P. Girlanda R. Baker A. Rela M. Heaton N. Successful segmental auxiliary liver transplantation from a non-heart-beating donor: implications for split-liver transplantation.Transplantation. 2003; 75: 1443-1445Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar], and ALF resulting from acute hepatitis B infection [[39]Durand F. Belghitti J. Handra-Luca A. Francoz C. Sauvanet A. Marcellin P. et al.Auxiliary liver transplantation for fulminant hepatitis B: results from a series of six patients with special emphasis on regeneration and recurrence of hepatitis B.Liver Transpl. 2002; 8: 710-717Google Scholar]. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is now an established part of elective transplantation of paediatric recipients, and as a consequence of the scarcity of cadaveric organs is increasingly being used in adults [[41]Brown Jr., R.S. Russo M.W. Lai M. Shiffman M.L. Richardson M.C. Everhart J.E. Hoofnagle J.H. A survey of transplantation from living adult donors in the United States.N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 818-825Crossref PubMed Scopus (441) Google Scholar]. Its use in the paediatric ALF population is now well established, though patient and graft outcomes remain inferior to conventional cadaveric transplantation [42Uemoto S. Inomata Y. Sakurai T. Egawa H. Fujita S. Kiuchi T. et al.Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 70: 152-157PubMed Google Scholar, 43Liu C. Fan S. Lo C. Tam P.K. Saing H. Wei W.I. et al.Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure in children.Liver Transpl. 2003; 9: 1185-1190Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar]. Its extension to the adult ALF population is now being explored, and a number of cases and case series have been reported [42Uemoto S. Inomata Y. Sakurai T. Egawa H. Fujita S. Kiuchi T. et al.Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 70: 152-157PubMed Google Scholar, 44Miwa S. Hashikura Y. Mita A. Kubota T. Chisuwa H. Nakazawa Y. et al.Living-related liver transplantation for patients with fulminant and subfulminant hepatic failure.Hepatology. 1999; 30: 1521-1526Crossref PubMed Scopus (111) Google Scholar, 45Kato T. Nery J. Morcos J. Gyamfi A.R. Ruiz P. Molina E.G. Tzakis A.G. Successful living related liver transplantation in an adult with fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 1997; 64: 415-417Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar, 46Marcos A. Ham J. Fisher R. Olzinski A.T. Shiffman M.L. Sanyal A.J. et al.Emergency adult to adult living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 69: 2202-2205Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar]. In common with elective transplantation, the primary obstacle to be overcome when adopting LDLT for adult populations with ALF is that of obtaining an adequate size liver graft. In ALF poorer patient and graft survival is seen in patients receiving ‘small for size’ grafts with a graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) <0.8%; an optimal value of GRWR would appear to be closer to 1.0% [[42]Uemoto S. Inomata Y. Sakurai T. Egawa H. Fujita S. Kiuchi T. et al.Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 70: 152-157PubMed Google Scholar]. Since this is usually impossible to achieve with a left lobe or left lateral segment graft, most successful reported cases of LDLT in ALF have utilised right lobe grafts. The potential advantages of LDLT in this setting are the increase in the speed of availability of a high quality organ for transplantation, and it appears logistically possible to accomplish donor medical and psychiatric assessment in <24 h [42Uemoto S. Inomata Y. Sakurai T. Egawa H. Fujita S. Kiuchi T. et al.Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 70: 152-157PubMed Google Scholar, 46Marcos A. Ham J. Fisher R. Olzinski A.T. Shiffman M.L. Sanyal A.J. et al.Emergency adult to adult living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 2000; 69: 2202-2205Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar]. However, the ethical aspects of this situation are even more complex than those seen in paediatric transplantation where the donor is most frequently a parent and utilises a left lobe graft [[47]Surman O. The ethics of partial liver donation.N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1038Crossref PubMed Scopus (165) Google Scholar]. Complications are substantially more common in those donating a right rather than left lobe [[48]Umeshita K. Fujiwara K. Kiyosawa K. Makuuchi M. Satomi S. Sugimachi K. et al.Operative morbidity of living liver donors in Japan.Lancet. 2003; 362: 687-690Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (246) Google Scholar] and the pressures upon a candidate donor who is a family member or ‘significant other’ may be quite different. The pre-donation ethical and psychological evaluation becomes even more important in this setting. Though its application in areas where cadaveric transplantation is rarely undertaken is likely to be common, it is unclear whether the technique will find a place where rapid procurement of cadaveric grafts is already possible. A variety of extra-corporeal supportive devices have been advocated to replace liver function in the patient with ALF either to stabilise the patient awaiting transplantation, or to improve native liver regeneration. Despite frequent uncontrolled case series, conclusive evidence of benefit to patients has never been demonstrated [[49]Bertani H. Gelmini R. Del Buono M.G. De Maria N. Girardis M. Solfrini V. Villa E. Literature overview on artificial liver support in fulminant hepatic failure: a methodological approach.Int J Artif Organs. 2002; 25: 903-910PubMed Google Scholar]. Currently there is no published data to support the use of either biological or non-biological systems in ALF outside the setting of randomised controlled trials. The use of hepatocyte transplantation (HT) has also been proposed for similar purposes in ALF [[50]Strom S. Chowdray J. Fox I. Hepatocyte transplantation for human disease.Semin Liver Dis. 1999; 19: 39-48Crossref PubMed Scopus (333) Google Scholar]. In this technique, human hepatocytes are infused into the splenic or hepatic portal vascular beds to provide adjunctive hepatic function for the failing liver. Though there have been reports of the successful treatment of inborn errors of hepatic metabolism using this technique [51Muraca M. Gerunda G. Neri D. Vilei M.T. Granato A. Feltracco P. et al.Hepatocyte transplantation as a treatment for glycogen storage disease type 1a.Lancet. 2002; 359: 317-318Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (340) Google Scholar, 52Fox I. Chowdhury J. Kaufman S. Goertzen T.C. Chowdhury N.R. Warkentin P.I. et al.Treatment of the Crigler-Najjar syndrome type I with hepatocyte transplantation.N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1422-1426Crossref PubMed Scopus (901) Google Scholar], the challenges for its extension to ALF are great. The hepatocyte mass required to support or replace lost liver function in ALF is likely to be at least an order of magnitude greater than that required for the correction of isolated metabolic defects [[53]Rust C. Gores G. Hepatocyte transplantation for acute liver failure: a new therapeutic option for the next millennium?.Liver Transpl. 2000; 6: 41-42PubMed Google Scholar] and sustaining the viability and function of infused cells in the unfavourable environment presented by sick patients with ALF is likely to be difficult. Case series to date have shown the practicality of the technique although evidence for clinical benefit is limited [54Bilir B. Guinette D. Karrer F. Kumpe D.A. Krysl J. Stephens J. et al.Hepatocyte transplantation in acute liver failure.Liver Transpl. 2000; 6: 32-40Crossref PubMed Scopus (303) Google Scholar, 55Strom S. Fisher R. Thompson M. Sanyal A.J. Cole P.E. Ham J.M. Posner M.P. Hepatocyte transplantation as a bridge to orthotopic liver transplantation in terminal liver failure.Transplantation. 1997; 65: 559-569Crossref Scopus (448) Google Scholar, 56Habibullah C. Syed I. Qamar A. Taher-Uz Z. Human fetal hepatocyte transplantation in patients with fulminant hepatic failure.Transplantation. 1994; 58: 951-952Crossref PubMed Scopus (256) Google Scholar]. The successful clinical application of HT in ALF will require optimisation of the process in the non-acute setting and will probably be appropriate only in the most stable patients." @default.
• W2002105502 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2002105502 creator A5009574999 @default.
• W2002105502 creator A5025986368 @default.
• W2002105502 date "2004-02-01" @default.
• W2002105502 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2002105502 title "Liver transplantation in adults with acute liver failure" @default.
• W2002105502 cites W136522690 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1485829472 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1544444492 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1600398165 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1608215573 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1968316999 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1970944533 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1971348077 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1972166222 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1979686921 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1986409070 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W1990318247 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W20021108 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2003115899 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2003375553 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2011517611 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2013605937 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2015633825 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2016398475 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2024377997 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2025596234 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2030178430 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2034295871 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2042962210 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2050620959 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2060711575 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2066723064 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2067700393 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2069240804 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2070991874 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2073345523 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2074693574 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2075351775 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2078240388 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2084534766 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2090497735 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2108632632 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2119262390 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2120197716 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2122526190 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2151166219 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2158736090 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2170132072 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2333804233 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2338988336 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W2470393658 @default.
• W2002105502 cites W4251681600 @default.
• W2002105502 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2003.11.020" @default.
• W2002105502 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14739087" @default.
• W2002105502 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2002105502 type Work @default.
• W2002105502 sameAs 2002105502 @default.
• W2002105502 citedByCount "102" @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022012 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022013 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022014 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022015 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022016 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022017 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022018 @default.
• W2002105502 countsByYear W20021055022020 @default.
• W2002105502 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2002105502 hasAuthorship W2002105502A5009574999 @default.
• W2002105502 hasAuthorship W2002105502A5025986368 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C2779609443 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C2911091166 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C2911218954 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C2994427840 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C126322002 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C177713679 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C2779609443 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C2911091166 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C2911218954 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C2994427840 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C71924100 @default.
• W2002105502 hasConceptScore W2002105502C90924648 @default.
• W2002105502 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2002105502 hasLocation W20021055021 @default.
• W2002105502 hasLocation W20021055022 @default.
• W2002105502 hasOpenAccess W2002105502 @default.
• W2002105502 hasPrimaryLocation W20021055021 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2044447297 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2086854242 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2624950802 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2788947572 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2792560191 @default.
• W2002105502 hasRelatedWork W2902398170 @default.

• next