[Analysis of the experience and procedural complications of trans-radial access versus trans-femoral access for hepatic arterial perfusion chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatic malignancies:a retrospective study].

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the differences between trans-radial access (TRA) and trans-femoral access (TFA) in hepatic arterial perfusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in terms of patient experience, postoperative complications, and patient preferences; explore whether TRA in HAIC is associated with better patient experience and compliance; and determine whether it is safer than TFA. Methods: The study was a retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastases from colorectal cancer treated with HAIC. We enrolled a total of 91 patients with advanced liver malignancies treated with HAIC from November 2022 to May 2023 in the Department of Interventional Therapy and Hepatobiliary Medicine at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital. The patients were divided into three groups: group TRA (n=20, receiving TRA HAIC only), group TFA (n=33, receiving TFA HAIC only), and crossover group [n=19, receiving TFA HAIC (Cross-TFA group) first, followed by TRA HAIC (Cross-TRA group)]. Meanwhile, to facilitate the expression of partial results, all patients receiving TRA HAIC were defined as the TRA-HAIC group (n=39, TRA+Cross-TRA group), and all patients receiving TFA HAIC were defined as the TFA-HAIC group (n=52, TFA+Cross-TFA group). The primary research index was the Quality of Life (QOL) visualization scale score. The secondary research index included approach-related and catheter-related adverse events, duration of surgery, and mean length of patient stay. We used various statistical methods such as Mann-Whitney U test, t-test, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, univariate logistic regression analysis, and multi-factor analysis. Results: TRA patients had significantly lower QOL scores than TFA patients (all P<0.001). The QOL scores of the Cross-TRA group were significantly lower than those of the Cross-TFA group (pain at the puncture site Z=-3.24, P=0.001, others P<0.001). The QOL scores of the Cross-TRA group were compared with those of the TRA group, which showed that the scores of the Cross-TRA group in overall discomfort (Z=-3.07,P=0.002), postoperative toilet difficulty (Z=-2.12, P=0.034), and walking difficulty (Z=-2.58, P=0.010) were significantly lower than those of the TRA group. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the Cross-TRA group than in the Cross-TFA group (Z=-3.78, P<0.001), and patients were more likely to receive TRA HAIC as the next procedure (χ2=30.42, P<0.001). In terms of mean length of stay, patients receiving TRA HAIC had a significantly lower mean length of stay than those receiving TFA HAIC (50.1±3.2 h vs. 58.4±6.4 h, t=7.98, P<0.001). The incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) as an approach-related adverse event was 15.4% (6/39) in the TRA-HAIC group, which was significantly higher than that in the TFA-HAIC group (15.4% vs. 0, χ2=8.56, P=0.005). Notably, multifactorial analysis of RAO-related factors showed that intraoperative enoxaparin use and patency of radial artery flow during pressure were significantly associated with a reduced risk of postoperative RAO (P=0.037 for enoxaparin use and P=0.049 for pressure). Conclusions: With respect to procedure approach, TRA was significantly better than TFA in terms of patient satisfaction and mean length of stay. Through further process optimization and prevention of adverse reactions, the incidence of adverse reactions can be maintained at a relatively low level, so that patients can benefit from TRA in future operations in terms of cost-effectiveness and medical efficiency.