4.2 Article

Biologic liver support: Optimal cell source and mass

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 985-993

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/039139880202501013

关键词

acute liver failure; isolated hepatocytes; bioartificial liver support systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatic support is indicated in acute liver failure (ALF) patients to foster liver regeneration, or until a liver becomes available for orthotropic liver transplantation (OLT), in primary non function of the transplanted liver, and hopefully in chronic liver disease patients affected by ALF episodes, in whom OLT is not a therapeutic option. The concept of bioartificial liver (BAL) is based on the assumption that only the hepatocytes can perform the whole spectrum of biotransformation functions, which are needed to prevent hepatic encephalopathy, coma and cerebral edema. Among others, two important issues are related to BAL development: 1) the choice of the cellular component; 2) the cell mass needed to perform an adequate BAL treatment. Primary hepatocytes, of human or animal origin, should be considered the first choice because they express highly differentiated functions. Accordingly, a minimal cell mass corresponding to 10% of a human adult liver, i.e. 150 grams of freshly isolated, greater than or equal to90% viable hepatocytes should be used. When 4 degreesC cold-stored or cryopreserved hepatopytes are used, the cellular mass should be increased because of a drop in cell viability and function. In case of hepatoma-derived cells, cultured cell lines or engineered cells, an adequate functional cell mass should be used, expressing metabolic and biotransformation activities comparable to those of primary hepatopytes. Finally, the use of porcine hepatocytes or other animal cells in BAL devices should be presently directed only to ALF patients as a bridge treatment to OLT because of potential transmission of animal retrovirus and prions which may potentially cause major pandemics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据