Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trials evaluate artificial liver support effectiveness in liver failure, indicating potential benefits but no definitive survival advantage.
Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) both have high mortality rates without liver transplantation. Artificial liver support systems may benefit patients with liver failure, serving as a bridge to transplantation or as a destination therapy allowing recovery. There are currently two types of artificial liver support systems: non-biological and biological. Non-biological artificial liver (NBAL) support systems primarily focus on detoxification by removing toxins through selective membranes and adsorbent materials. Well-known NBAL systems are plasma exchange, Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS), Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis (SPAD), and the Fractionated Plasma Separation and Adsorption System (Prometheus). NBAL therapies consistently reduce bilirubin and improve encephalopathy; however, pivotal randomized controlled trials such as RELIEF (MARS) and HELIOS (Prometheus) did not confirm a survival advantage, although plasma exchange improved transplant-free survival in acute liver failure. Biological artificial liver (BAL) support systems use human or animal-derived hepatocytes to temporarily replace liver function, including the Extracorporeal Liver Assist Device (ELAD), HepatAssist, and stem-cell-based systems. Early BAL studies showed biochemical and neurological improvements, but large trials such as VTL-308 failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit over standard medical therapy. Overall, while NBAL and BAL therapies can improve encephalopathy, renal function, and cholestasis, current evidence does not show a clear mortality benefit, and artificial liver support systems remain supportive rather than curative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: