Department of Bioimaging and Radiological Sciences, Candiolo Cancer Institute-IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Department of Radiological Sciences, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
Department of Radiology, IRCCS Fatebenefratelli Hospital Foundation for Health Research and Education, Rome, Italy.
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2019 Sep;25(5):368-374. doi: 10.5152/dir.2019.18437.
We aimed to analyze transradial access (TRA) learning curve on patients undergoing hepatic chemoembolization, investigating the relationship between procedural volumes and various benchmarks of procedural success.
We enrolled 60 consecutive patients who received two unilobar hepatic chemoembolizations within a 4-week interval performed by a single interventional radiologist, highly-trained in conventional transfemoral access (TFA) procedures, but without any previous practical experience in TRA procedures and with a preliminary 2-day theoretical training only. Consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled and analyzed in 3 groups: A (cases 1 to 20), B (cases 21 to 40), and C (cases 41 to 60). All patients underwent one hepatic chemoembolization using TRA and the other one using TFA in random order. All TFA procedures performed by the same operator in the same series of patients were considered as the control group. Primary endpoint was to analyze the relationship between TRA procedure operator experience and benchmarks of procedural success, to define the optimal procedural learning curve.
Technical success was obtained in all patients, with a crossover rate (radial to femoral access) of 0%. An association between incremental TRA operator experience (in terms of performed procedures) and decrease of preparation, puncture, fluoroscopy, and total examination times was observed. Similarly, inverse associations between incremental TRA operator experience and contrast medium (CM) volumes (P < 0.001) and radiation dose (RD) values (in terms of RAK - Reference Air Kerma) (P < 0.001) were also observed. Compared with TFA, CM volumes and RD values were significantly higher only in group A (cases 1-20). Procedure success remained high in all TRA groups and no significant association between TRA incremental experience and postprocedural outcomes was found. Higher postprocedural complaints at the access route and more limitations in performing basic activities were recorded after TFA vs. TRA (P < 0.001).
TRA catheterizations can be safely performed in patients treated for liver cancer embolization after a relatively short training in controlled conditions and with a better performance in comparison with TFA. Operator proficiency improves with greater TRA experience, with a threshold needed to overcome the learning curve represented by about 20 procedures.
本研究旨在分析经桡动脉入路(TRA)行肝动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)的学习曲线,探讨操作量与各种操作成功指标之间的关系。
我们纳入了 60 例连续患者,这些患者在 4 周的时间内由同一位介入放射科医生进行了两次单侧 TACE 治疗,该医生在传统经股动脉入路(TFA)方面经验丰富,但在 TRA 方面没有任何实际经验,仅接受了为期 2 天的理论培训。连续患者前瞻性纳入并分为 3 组:A 组(病例 1-20)、B 组(病例 21-40)和 C 组(病例 41-60)。所有患者均先采用 TRA 进行一次 TACE,然后随机采用 TFA 进行另一次 TACE。同一组患者中由同一位医生进行的所有 TFA 操作均视为对照组。主要终点是分析 TRA 操作者经验与操作成功指标之间的关系,以确定最佳操作学习曲线。
所有患者均获得了技术上的成功,经桡动脉至股动脉的交叉率为 0%。TRA 操作者经验(以操作数量计)与准备时间、穿刺时间、透视时间和总检查时间的缩短呈正相关。类似地,TRA 操作者经验的增量与对比剂(CM)体积(P<0.001)和辐射剂量(RD)值(以 RAK-参考空气比)(P<0.001)呈负相关。与 TFA 相比,仅在 A 组(病例 1-20)中,CM 体积和 RD 值显著更高。在所有 TRA 组中,操作成功率均较高,且未发现 TRA 增量经验与术后结果之间存在显著相关性。与 TRA 相比,TFA 后患者在入路部位的术后不适更明显,且在进行基本活动方面的限制更多(P<0.001)。
在经过相对短期的 TRA 培训并在受控条件下,TRA 导管术可安全地用于接受肝癌栓塞治疗的患者,并且与 TFA 相比,TRA 具有更好的性能。TRA 操作熟练度随 TRA 经验的增加而提高,克服学习曲线所需的阈值约为 20 次操作。