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

IF 1.7 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Przegla̜d Gastroenterologiczny Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-29 DOI:10.5114/pg.2024.139297
Eyad Gadour, Mohammed Abdullah Kaballo, Khalid Shrwani, Zeinab Hassan, Ahmed Kotb, Ahmed Aljuraysan, Bogdan Miuţescu, Nouf Sherwani, Waleed Mahallawi
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis (SPAD), Prometheus, and Molecular Adsorbent Recycling System (MARS) liver haemodialysis vs. Standard Medical Therapy (SMT): meta-analysis and systematic review.","authors":"Eyad Gadour, Mohammed Abdullah Kaballo, Khalid Shrwani, Zeinab Hassan, Ahmed Kotb, Ahmed Aljuraysan, Bogdan Miuţescu, Nouf Sherwani, Waleed Mahallawi","doi":"10.5114/pg.2024.139297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Because not all liver dysfunction patients are suitable for transplantations and there is a shortage of grafts, liver support therapies have gained interest. In this regard, extracorporeal albumin dialysis devices such as single-pass albumin dialysis (SPAD), Prometheus, and molecular adsorbent recycling system (MARS) have been valuable in supplementing standard medical therapy (SMT). However, the efficacy and safety of these devices is often questioned.Aim: We performed a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus as supportive treatments for liver dysfunction.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were extensively searched for all randomized trials published in English. In addition, meta-analytic analyses were performed with Review Manager software, and Cochrane's risk of bias tool embedded in this software was used for bias assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve trials including a total of 653 patients were eligible for inclusion. Subgroup analyses of data from these trials revealed that MARS and Prometheus were associated with significant removal of bilirubin (MD = -5.14 mg/dl; 95% CI: -7.26 - -3.02; <i>p</i> < 0.00001 and MD = -8.11 mg/dl; 95% CI: -12.40 - -3.82; <i>p</i> = 0.0002, respectively) but not bile acids and ammonia when compared to SMT. Furthermore, MARS was as effective as Prometheus and SPAD in the reduction of bilirubin (MD = 2.98 mg/dl; 95% CI: -4.26 - 10.22; <i>p</i> = 0.42 and MD = 0.67 mg/dl; 95% CI: -2.22 - 3.56; <i>p</i> = 0.65), bile acids (MD = -17.06 µmol/l; 95% CI: -64.33 - 30.20; <i>p</i> = 0.48 and MD = 16.21 µmol/l; 95% CI: -17.26 - 49.68; <i>p</i> = 0.34), and ammonia (MD = 26 µmol/l; 95% CI: -12.44 - 64.44; <i>p</i> = 0.18). In addition, MARS had a considerable effect in improving hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.05; <i>p</i> = 0.004). However, neither MARS nor Prometheus had a mortality benefit compared to SMTRR (0.86; 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; <i>p</i> = 0.11 and RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66-1.14; <i>p</i> = 0.31, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus, as liver support therapies, are equally effective in reducing albumin-bound and water-soluble substances. Moreover, MARS is associated with HE improvement. However, none of the therapies was associated with a significant reduction in mortality or adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":20719,"journal":{"name":"Przegla̜d Gastroenterologiczny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11200067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przegla̜d Gastroenterologiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2024.139297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Because not all liver dysfunction patients are suitable for transplantations and there is a shortage of grafts, liver support therapies have gained interest. In this regard, extracorporeal albumin dialysis devices such as single-pass albumin dialysis (SPAD), Prometheus, and molecular adsorbent recycling system (MARS) have been valuable in supplementing standard medical therapy (SMT). However, the efficacy and safety of these devices is often questioned.Aim: We performed a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus as supportive treatments for liver dysfunction.

Material and methods: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were extensively searched for all randomized trials published in English. In addition, meta-analytic analyses were performed with Review Manager software, and Cochrane's risk of bias tool embedded in this software was used for bias assessment.

Results: Twelve trials including a total of 653 patients were eligible for inclusion. Subgroup analyses of data from these trials revealed that MARS and Prometheus were associated with significant removal of bilirubin (MD = -5.14 mg/dl; 95% CI: -7.26 - -3.02; p < 0.00001 and MD = -8.11 mg/dl; 95% CI: -12.40 - -3.82; p = 0.0002, respectively) but not bile acids and ammonia when compared to SMT. Furthermore, MARS was as effective as Prometheus and SPAD in the reduction of bilirubin (MD = 2.98 mg/dl; 95% CI: -4.26 - 10.22; p = 0.42 and MD = 0.67 mg/dl; 95% CI: -2.22 - 3.56; p = 0.65), bile acids (MD = -17.06 µmol/l; 95% CI: -64.33 - 30.20; p = 0.48 and MD = 16.21 µmol/l; 95% CI: -17.26 - 49.68; p = 0.34), and ammonia (MD = 26 µmol/l; 95% CI: -12.44 - 64.44; p = 0.18). In addition, MARS had a considerable effect in improving hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.05; p = 0.004). However, neither MARS nor Prometheus had a mortality benefit compared to SMTRR (0.86; 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; p = 0.11 and RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66-1.14; p = 0.31, respectively).

Conclusions: MARS, SPAD, and Prometheus, as liver support therapies, are equally effective in reducing albumin-bound and water-soluble substances. Moreover, MARS is associated with HE improvement. However, none of the therapies was associated with a significant reduction in mortality or adverse events.

单程白蛋白透析(SPAD)、普罗米修斯(Prometheus)和分子吸附剂循环系统(MARS)肝脏血液透析与标准医疗疗法(SMT)的安全性和有效性:荟萃分析和系统综述。
导言:由于并非所有肝功能异常患者都适合接受移植手术,而且移植物短缺,因此肝脏支持疗法备受关注。在这方面,体外白蛋白透析装置,如单程白蛋白透析(SPAD)、普罗米修斯(Prometheus)和分子吸附剂循环系统(MARS),在补充标准医疗疗法(SMT)方面具有重要价值。目的:我们进行了一项系统性综述,总结了MARS、SPAD和Prometheus作为肝功能异常辅助治疗方法的有效性和安全性:我们在 PubMed、Medline、Cochrane Library、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 电子数据库中广泛检索了所有用英语发表的随机试验。此外,还使用Review Manager软件进行了荟萃分析,并使用该软件中嵌入的Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行偏倚评估:共有 12 项试验符合纳入条件,其中包括 653 名患者。对这些试验的数据进行分组分析后发现,与 SMT 相比,MARS 和 Prometheus 能显著清除胆红素(MD = -5.14 mg/dl; 95% CI: -7.26 - -3.02;p < 0.00001;MD = -8.11 mg/dl; 95% CI: -12.40 - -3.82;p = 0.0002),但不能清除胆汁酸和氨。此外,MARS 在降低胆红素(MD = 2.98 mg/dl;95% CI:-4.26 - 10.22;p = 0.42 和 MD = 0.67 mg/dl;95% CI:-2.22 - 3.56;p = 0.65)、胆汁酸(MD = -17.06 µmol/l; 95% CI: -64.33 - 30.20; p = 0.48 和 MD = 16.21 µmol/l; 95% CI: -17.26 - 49.68; p = 0.34)和氨(MD = 26 µmol/l; 95% CI: -12.44 - 64.44; p = 0.18)。此外,MARS 对改善肝性脑病(HE)也有显著效果(RR = 1.54;95% CI:1.15-2.05;p = 0.004)。然而,与SMTRR相比,MARS和Prometheus均无死亡率获益(分别为0.86;95% CI:0.71-1.03;p = 0.11和RR = 0.87;95% CI:0.66-1.14;p = 0.31):结论:MARS、SPAD 和 Prometheus 作为肝脏支持疗法,在减少白蛋白结合物质和水溶性物质方面同样有效。此外,MARS 还能改善 HE。然而,没有一种疗法能显著降低死亡率或不良反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Przegla̜d Gastroenterologiczny
Przegla̜d Gastroenterologiczny GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Review is a journal published each 2 months, aimed at gastroenterologists and general practitioners. Published under the patronage of Consultant in Gastroenterology and Polish Pancreatic Club.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信