首页> 外文期刊>Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR >Transradial Versus Transfemoral Arterial Access in Liver Cancer Embolization: Randomized Trial to Assess Patient Satisfaction
【24h】

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Arterial Access in Liver Cancer Embolization: Randomized Trial to Assess Patient Satisfaction

机译:肝癌栓塞血浆与血致动脉接入:随机试验评估患者满意度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Purpose To determine whether transradial access (TRA) or transfemoral access (TFA) provides better patient satisfaction during intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for liver cancer. Materials and Methods This randomized, prospective, intra- and interpatient controlled trial compared TRA vs TFA accesses in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer undergoing IAT. After having one of each type of access (1 TRA and 1 TFA), all patients selected their preferred access regardless of whether a third intervention was indicated. The primary endpoint was patient access preference; secondary endpoints were access-related complications, procedure time, contrast agent volume, and radiation doses to the patient and operator. Patients were evaluated on postprocedure days 1 and?30. Results Fifty-five patients with liver cancer (31 hepatocellular carcinoma, 24 metastatic disease) were enrolled, and 124 IAT procedures were performed. A total of 36 patients underwent at least 1 intervention each with TRA and TFA. Of those, 29 patients (81%) preferred TRA and 7 (19%) preferred TFA (ratio, 4:1; P P ?= .01). Incidences of complications, procedure time, contrast agent volume, and radiation exposure to patients were similar between groups. Conclusions TRA was the preferred access for the majority of patients and was associated with less radiation exposure to the operator. No differences were detected in incidence of adverse events, procedure time, contrast agent volume, or patient radiation exposure.
机译:摘要目的,以确定跨越递推(TRA)或经帧性接入(TFA)在动脉内治疗(IAT)中提供更好的患者满意度,用于肝癌。材料和方法这种随机,前瞻性,和介性控制试验进行了比较的TRA对患者进行IAT的原发性或转移性肝癌的患者。在进行每种类型的访问之一(1个TRA和1 TFA)之后,所有患者均不管是否指出了第三介入。主要终点是患者访问偏好;辅助端点是与患者和操作者的接入相关的并发症,程序时间,造影剂体积和辐射剂量。患者在后持续性日期1和?30时评估。结果注册了肝癌(31例肝细胞癌,24例转移性疾病)患有55例患者,并进行124例IAT程序。共有36名患者经历了至少1例干预,每种干预均有TRA和TFA。其中,29例(81%)优选的TRA和7(19%)优选的TFA(比率,4:1; P <= .01)。在患者之间发生并发症,程序时间,造影剂体积和辐射接触的发病率相似。结论TRA是大多数患者的首选获取,并且与运营商的辐射暴露较少。在不良事件的发生,程序时间,造影剂体积或患者辐射暴露中没有检测到差异。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Department of Radiation Safety Medical University of South Carolina;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

    Division of Vascular &

    Interventional Radiology Department of Radiology Medical University of;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 放射医学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号