Clinically applied bioartificial liver (BAL) support systems are difficult to compare with regard to overall hepatocyte-specific function and clinical outcome. We compared two clinically applied BAL systems, the Modular Extracorporeal Liver Support (MELS) CellModule and the AMC-bioartificial liver (AMC-BAL) in an in vitro set-up. Both BAL systems were loaded with 10 billion freshly isolated porcine hepatocytes, cultured for 7 days and tested on days 1, 2, 4 and 7. Average decrease in hepatocyte-specific functions over 7 days was 9.7%. Three parameters differed between both bioreactors: lidocaine elimination at days 1 and 2 was significantly higher in the AMC-BAL, ammonia elimination showed a significantly higher trend for the AMC-BAL over 7 days and LDH release was significantly lower at day 7 for the MELS CellModule. In conclusion, this first in vitro comparison of two clinically applied BAL systems shows comparable functional capacity over a period of 7 days.
JalanR., HayesP.C.Hepatic encephalopathy and ascites.Lancet1997; 350: 1309–15.
3.
van de KerkhoveM.P., PoyckP.P., van WijkA.C., GalavottiD., HoekstraR., van GulikT.M., ChamuleauR.A.Assessment and improvement of liver specific function of the AMC-bioartificial liver.Int J Artif Organs2005; 28: 617–30.
4.
SauerI.M., KardassisD., ZeillingerK., PascherA., GruenwaldA., PlessG., IrgangM., KraemerM., PuhlG., FrankJ., MullerA.R., SteinmullerT., DennerJ., NeuhausP., GerlachJ.C.Clinical extracorporeal hybrid liver support-phase I study with primary porcine liver cells.Xenotransplantation2003; 10: 460–9.
5.
SauerI.M., ZeilingerK., ObermayerN., PlessG., GrunwaldA., PascherA., MiederT., RothS., GoetzM., KardassisD., MasA., NeuhausP., GerlachJ.C.Primary human liver cells as source for modular extracorporeal liver support - a preliminary report.Int J Artif Organs2002; 25: 1001–5.
6.
van de KerkhoveM.P., Di FlorioE., ScuderiV., ManciniA., BelliA., BraccoA., DauriM., TisoneG., Di NicuoloG., AmorosoP., SpadariA., LombardiG., HoekstraR., CaliseF., ChamuleauR.A.Phase I clinical trial with the AMC-bioartificial liver. Academic Medical Center.Int J Artif Organs2002; 25: 950–9.
7.
van de KerkhoveM.P., HoekstraR., ChamuleauR.A., van GulikT.M.Clinical application of bioartificial liver support systems.Ann Surg2004; 240: 216–30.
8.
ParkJ.K., LeeD.H.Bioartificial liver systems: Current status and future perspective.J Biosci Bioeng2005; 99: 311–9.
FlendrigL.M., ChamuleauR.A., MaasM.A., DaalhuisenJ., HassetB., KiltyC.G., DoyleS., LadigesN.C., JorningG.G., la SoeJ.W., SommeijerD., te VeldeA.A.Evaluation of a novel bioartificial liver in rats with complete liver ischemia: Treatment efficacy and species-specific alpha-GST detection to monitor hepatocyte viability.J Hepatol1999; 30: 311–20.
11.
FlendrigL.M., CaliseF., Di FlorioE., ManciniA., CerielloA., SantanielloW., MezzaE., SicoliF., BellezaG., BraccoA., CozzolinoS., ScalaD., MazzoneM., FattoreM., GonzalesE., ChamuleauR.A.Significantly improved survival time in pigs with complete liver ischemia treated with a novel bioartificial liver.Int J Artif Organs1999; 22: 701–9.
12.
SosefM.N., AbrahamseL.S., van de KerkhoveM.P., HartmanR., ChamuleauR.A., van GulikT.M.Assessment of the AMC-bioartificial liver in the anhepatic pig.Transplantation2002; 73: 204–9.
13.
SeglenP.O.Preparation of rat liver cells. 3. Enzymatic requirements for tissue dispersion.Exp Cell Res 173; 82: 391–8.
14.
CatapanoG.Mass transfer limitations to the performance of membrane bioartificial liver support devices.Int J Artif Organs1996; 19: 18–35.
PoyckP.P., HoekstraR., van WijkA.C., Ten BloemendaalL., ChamuleauR.A., van GulikT.M.Mild hypothermic preservation for transport purposes of the AMC bioartificial liver charged with porcine hepatocytes.Transplantation2005; 80: 1153–60.
17.
SauerI.M., SchwartlanderR., van der JagtO., SteffenI., EfimovaE., PlessG., KehrD.C., KardassisD., FruhaufJ.H., GerlachJ.C., NeuhausP.In vitro evaluation of the transportability of viable primary human liver cells originating from discarded donor organs in bioreactors.Artif Organs2005; 29: 144–51.
