Iezzi Roberto, Pompili Maurizio, Posa Alessandro, Annicchiarico Eleonora, Garcovich Matteo, Merlino Biagio, Rodolfino Elena, Di Noia Vincenzo, Basso Michele, Cassano Alessandra, Barone Carlo, Gasbarrini Antonio, Manfredi Riccardo, Colosimo Cesare
Department of Radiological Sciences, Policlinico Gemelli Foundation, Catholic University, l.go A. Gemelli 8, Rome 00168, Italy.
Department of Gastroenterology, Policlinico Gemelli Foundation, Catholic University, l.go A. Gemelli 8, Rome 00168, Italy.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017 Sep;28(9):1234-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.06.022. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
To compare transfemoral approach (TFA) and transradial approach (TRA) in patients undergoing hepatic chemoembolization in terms of safety, feasibility, and procedural variables, including fluoroscopy time, radiation dose (reference air kerma [RAK]), and patient preference.
A single-center prospective intrapatient comparative study was conducted with 42 consecutive patients with hepatic malignancies who received 2 consecutive treatment sessions of unilobar hepatic chemoembolization within a 4-week interval over a 6-month period with both TRA and TFA. All procedures were performed by 1 interventional radiologist who assessed the eligibility of patients for inclusion in the study. The primary endpoint was intraprocedural conversion rate. Secondary endpoints were access site complications, angiographic and procedural variables, and evaluation of patient discomfort and preferences.
A 100% technical success rate and a crossover rate of 0% were recorded. There were no major vascular complications and similar rates of minor complications (4.8% for TRA, 7.1% for TFA; P = .095), which were self-limited and without any clinical sequelae. TRA treatments required a significantly longer preparation time for the procedure (P = .008) with no significant differences for other procedural variables. Greater discomfort at the access route and patient inability to perform basic activities after the procedure were recorded for TFA (P < .001). TRA was preferred by 35 patients (35/42) for potential future transarterial procedures.
TRA is safe and feasible for transarterial hepatic chemoembolization, with high technical success, low overall complications, and improved patient comfort.
比较经股动脉途径(TFA)和经桡动脉途径(TRA)在接受肝动脉化疗栓塞术患者中的安全性、可行性及手术相关变量,包括透视时间、辐射剂量(参考空气比释动能[RAK])和患者偏好。
进行了一项单中心前瞻性患者内对照研究,纳入42例肝恶性肿瘤患者,在6个月内间隔4周连续接受2次单叶肝动脉化疗栓塞术,分别采用TRA和TFA。所有手术均由1名介入放射科医生进行,该医生评估患者纳入研究的资格。主要终点为术中转换率。次要终点为穿刺部位并发症、血管造影及手术相关变量,以及患者不适和偏好的评估。
技术成功率为100%,交叉率为0%。未发生重大血管并发症,轻微并发症发生率相似(TRA为4.8%,TFA为7.1%;P = 0.095),均为自限性,无任何临床后遗症。TRA治疗的手术准备时间明显更长(P = 0.008),其他手术相关变量无显著差异。TFA组患者穿刺部位不适感更强,术后无法进行基本活动的情况更多(P < 0.001)。35例患者(35/42)更倾向于TRA用于未来可能的经动脉手术。
TRA用于经动脉肝动脉化疗栓塞术安全可行,技术成功率高,总体并发症少,患者舒适度提高。