Giurazza Francesco, Vizzuso Antonio, Capussela Tiziana, De Martino Fortuna, Pirozzi Palmese Valentina, Giorgetti Gianluigi, Corvino Fabio, Ierardi Anna Maria, Biondetti Pierpaolo, Lucatelli Pierleone, Giampalma Emanuela, Carrafiello Gianpaolo, Niola Raffaella
Vascular and Interventional Radiology Department, Cardarelli Hospital, Via Antonio Cardarelli 9, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, 47121, Forlì, Italy.
Radiol Med. 2024 Dec;129(12):1936-1943. doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01906-8. Epub 2024 Nov 4.
This multicenter prospective study aims to compare transradial access versus transfemoral access in conventional transarterial chemoembolization (c-TACE) procedures, focusing on operators radiations exposure, patients comfort, technical success and vascular access complications.
Patients were affected by hepatocellularcarcinoma (HCC) in intermediate stage or previous stages unfit for ablation and/or surgery; they were randomized into two groups according to arterial access site (Group F: right femoral access in standard position; Group R: radial access with left arm abduced 90°). Overall fluoroscopy time was recorded. Eight thermoluminescence dosimeters were positioned immediately before each procedure to monitor radiation doses. Technical success was intended as complete HCC nodules lipiodolization at final plain cone-beam CT.
Group F included 23 patients, while group R 19. Mean fluoroscopy time was lower in group F but difference was not statistically significant (p-value > 0.05). In terms of operators radiations exposure, no significant differences were found (p-value > 0.05). Technical success was obtained in 81.5% in group F and 84.8% in group R, without significant differences (p-value > 0.05). Patients discomfort was significantly (p-value < 0.05) higher in group F. Concerning minor complications, no statistical differences were appreciated (p-value > 0.05); no major complications occurred.
In this study, no statistical differences were observed in terms of operators radiations exposure, fluoroscopy time and technical success during c-TACE performed with left radial access compared to right femoral access; patients comfort was significantly better with radial access. These data should lead interventional radiologists to favor radial access in c-TACE interventions.
本多中心前瞻性研究旨在比较传统经动脉化疗栓塞术(c-TACE)中经桡动脉入路与经股动脉入路,重点关注术者辐射暴露、患者舒适度、技术成功率和血管入路并发症。
患者为中期或既往不适合消融和/或手术的肝细胞癌(HCC);根据动脉入路部位将他们随机分为两组(F组:标准位置右股动脉入路;R组:左臂外展90°的桡动脉入路)。记录总的透视时间。在每次手术前立即放置八个热释光剂量计以监测辐射剂量。技术成功定义为最终平扫锥形束CT时肝癌结节完全碘化油栓塞。
F组包括23例患者,R组19例。F组的平均透视时间较低,但差异无统计学意义(p值>0.05)。在术者辐射暴露方面,未发现显著差异(p值>0.05)。F组的技术成功率为81.5%,R组为84.8%,无显著差异(p值>0.05)。F组患者的不适感显著更高(p值<0.05)。关于轻微并发症,未观察到统计学差异(p值>0.05);未发生严重并发症。
在本研究中,与右股动脉入路相比,左桡动脉入路进行c-TACE时,在术者辐射暴露、透视时间和技术成功率方面未观察到统计学差异;桡动脉入路患者的舒适度明显更好。这些数据应促使介入放射科医生在c-TACE干预中倾向于桡动脉入路。