Doctors test latest attempt at artificial liver (February 2, 2009)

Back in February 1999, a trial was put into place to test the ELAD (an Extracorporeal Liver Assist Device.) As of 2009, ten years later, the ELAD has still not been implemented in our health care system. This article, published ten years after the first testing trial, states that doctors are again experimenting with the device and trying to get hospitals to utilize the machine. The article emphasizes that although this device will not replace a damaged kidney, it could buy enough time for for the damaged liver to recover on its own or sustain itself until a kidney replacement is available.

This experiment is, hopefully, the last quest to implement the use of a device that could temporarily take over some of the liver’s jobs when it is failing or damaged. It’s amazing how this device was designed in 1999 and even after ten years the device is not widely used even though it has proved its efficacy several times. In 2002, a patient named Kevin Fitzmaurice began to emerge from a coma after a day of using the liver assist device. Had Kevin not gotten on the ELAD support, he would have died before the arrival of his donated kidney. Kevin’s case is one of the primary reasons the ELAD has been brought back into testing.

However, now that doctors are trying to get hospitals to use this device, it has been under close scrutiny primarily because of the $30,000 price tag. The FDA is asking for three to 10 days of ELAD liver support to improve the 30-day survival that the similarly ill get with today’s standard supportive care. I think these standards the FDA has placed on the device are extremely reasonable, especially given the current health care situation and debate. There are many illnesses and diseases that plague this world and, of course, acute liver failure is one of them. However, there’s no point in investing large amounts of money and time in a complicated artificial liver device that won’t prove any more effective than the already existent treatments. Considering the large price tag this treatment comes with, this device should prove strong efficacy. Spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on biotechnology that doesn't prove significant efficacy, is, in my opinion, futile when there are other significant health issues that need to be addressed.

-Andrea

No author given, Associated Press (MSNBC), 2/2/09
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28981937/#storyContinued