Academic radiology · 2013
Pressure wire assessment of hemodynamic alterations after chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяTechnical ReportНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Borowski Allison M, Frangos Andrea, McCann Jeffrey W, Brown Daniel B
Аннотация
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The end point of chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma is qualitative. We intended to determine the feasibility of measuring intra-arterial pressure changes after chemoembolization and hypothesized that pressures would increase in the distal hepatic artery after the procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before and after chemoembolization, systemic (S) systolic and mean pressures were measured along with celiac (C), lobar (L), and distal (D) hepatic artery pressures with a pressure wire. Corrected pressures were defined as a ratio with S as the denominator to account for intraprocedural S changes. Changes in the systolic and mean corrected pressures at each location (C/S, L/S, and D/S) were evaluated using paired t tests. Pressure changes in patients with and without tumor response using the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were also compared.
RESULTS: Sixteen tumors were treated in 15 patients. One patient had bilobar tumors with separate supplying arteries. The only significant pressure change was systolic D/S (P = .02), while mean D/S approached significance (P = .08). C/S and L/S did not change significantly after chemoembolization. Eleven of 16 patients had a complete response, whereas the other five had a partial response after chemoembolization. When comparing complete to partial responders, no changes in systolic or mean C/S, L/S, or D/S reached statistical significance (all P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Measuring change in hepatic artery pressures is feasible. Distal intra-arterial corrected pressures increase significantly after chemoembolization. Further study to determine the ability to predict tumor necrosis at follow-up imaging is warranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before and after chemoembolization, systemic (S) systolic and mean pressures were measured along with celiac (C), lobar (L), and distal (D) hepatic artery pressures with a pressure wire. Corrected pressures were defined as a ratio with S as the denominator to account for intraprocedural S changes. Changes in the systolic and mean corrected pressures at each location (C/S, L/S, and D/S) were evaluated using paired t tests. Pressure changes in patients with and without tumor response using the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were also compared.
RESULTS: Sixteen tumors were treated in 15 patients. One patient had bilobar tumors with separate supplying arteries. The only significant pressure change was systolic D/S (P = .02), while mean D/S approached significance (P = .08). C/S and L/S did not change significantly after chemoembolization. Eleven of 16 patients had a complete response, whereas the other five had a partial response after chemoembolization. When comparing complete to partial responders, no changes in systolic or mean C/S, L/S, or D/S reached statistical significance (all P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Measuring change in hepatic artery pressures is feasible. Distal intra-arterial corrected pressures increase significantly after chemoembolization. Further study to determine the ability to predict tumor necrosis at follow-up imaging is warranted.