Transradial versus transfemoral access without closure device for transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient satisfaction, procedural variables, and safety with transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

From February 2019 to August 2021, 130 patients undergoing TACE for HCC were randomly allocated to the TRA (n = 65) or TFA (n = 65) group. Vascular closure devices were not used after TFA-TACE. All patients completed the post-catheterization questionnaire and 8-item Short-Form Health Survey 1 day after TACE.

RESULTS

Technical success rate, crossover rate, contrast agent dose, fluoroscopy time, procedure time, air kerma, dose-area product, length of hospital stay, and total cost were similar between the two groups (all p > 0.05). The incidence and severity of adverse events were also similar between the two groups (all p > 0.05). However, overall discomfort, difficulty going to the bathroom, difficulty feeding or self-caring, difficulty walking, general health, physical function, role physical function, social function, mental health, and role emotional function were better in the TRA group than in the TFA group (all p < 0.001). Consequently, more patients preferred the current access for their next procedure in the TRA group than in the TFA group (90.8% vs. 24.6%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing TACE for HCC, using TRA instead of TFA can improve patient satisfaction without compromising procedural variables and safety.

KEY POINTS: • Transradial access (TRA) enabled early ambulation after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), resulting in significant increase in activities of daily living and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to transfemoral access (TFA) when vascular closure devices were not used. • Procedural variables (contrast agent dose, fluoroscopy time, procedure time, air kerma, dose-area product, length of hospital stay, and total cost) were not significantly different between patients who received TRA-TACE and TFA-TACE. • The incidence and severity of adverse events were similar between patients who received TRA-TACE and TFA-TACE.