Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access
- PMID: 27353460
- PMCID: PMC5019848
- DOI: 10.5152/dir.2016.15571
Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access
Abstract
Purpose: Despite the growing evidence in the cardiology literature that transradial approach has substantial benefits over transfemoral access, this technique is rarely used during interventions in the systemic circulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of transradial approach for hepatic radioembolization and to compare it with transfemoral approach.
Methods: Sixty-four hepatic radioembolizations performed in 50 patients were included in the study. Thirty-three procedures were performed via radial access in 27 patients, and 31 procedures were performed via femoral access in 23 patients.
Results: There was 100% technical success in performing hepatic radioembolization in both groups. The majority (97%) of the patients who underwent transradial radioembolization reported preference for radial artery access. The fluoroscopy time was significantly longer (9.45±5.09 min vs. 5.72±3.67 min, P < 0.01) and the radiation dose was significantly higher (597.8±585.2 mGy vs. 302.8±208.3 mGy, P < 0.01) in the radial group compared with the femoral group. The direct cost savings using radial access versus femoral access is approximately $100/procedure. In addition, there was a one hour (50%) shorter postprocedural stay for patients who underwent the transradial procedure.
Conclusion: Transradial access is feasible for hepatic radioembolization. The transradial approach is cheaper and offers improved patient comfort. However, it is technically challenging, with longer fluoroscopy times and higher radiation doses. Transradial approach should be considered as a primary choice in patients with low platelet count and/or morbid obesity. Transradial access should be in the procedural repertoire of every interventional radiologist.
References
-
- Sangro B, Salem R, Kennedy A, Coldwell D, Wasan H. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of the evidence and treatment recommendations. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34:422–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e3181df0a50. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mouli S, Memon K, Baker T, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: safety, response, and survival analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:1227–1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.02.031. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Sato KT, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, et al. Unresectable chemorefractory liver metastases: radioembolization with 90Y microspheres--safety, efficacy, and survival. Radiology. 2008;247:507–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2472062029. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, et al. Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007–2012) Circulation. 2013;127:2295–2306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2465–2476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60292-6. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical