Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2015
Prophylactic embolization of the cystic artery prior to radioembolization of liver malignancies--an evaluation of necessity.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Powerski Maciej, Busse Anke, Seidensticker Max, Fischbach Frank, Seidensticker Ricarda, Strach Katharina, Dudeck Oliver, Ricke Jens, Pech Maciej
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Prior to radioembolization (RE) of hepatic tumors, many centers prophylactically occlude the cystic artery (CA) during evaluation angiography (EVA) to prevent radiation-induced cholecystitis. There is no conclusive evidence for the protective effect of CA embolization and it bears the risk of inducing ischemic cholecystitis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the justification for CA embolization by comparing clinical and morphologic imaging parameters between patients undergoing coil occlusion of the cystic artery (COCA) and those with uncoiled CA (UCCA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective comparison of 37 patients with UCCA versus 68 patients with COCA in terms of clinical findings (CRP, leukocyte count, body temperature, upper abdominal pain) and morphologic imaging parameters associated with cholecystitis (gallbladder (GB) wall thickness, free fluid in GB bed, bremsstrahlung SPECT) after EVA, after RE, and at 6-week follow-up.
RESULTS: At none of the 3 time points (EVA, RE, 6-week follow-up) was there any significant difference in CRP, leukocyte count, body temperature, or upper abdominal pain between the UCCA and COCA group. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to GB wall thickness, fluid in the GB bed, and bremsstrahlung in SPECT. One patient of the UCCA group and two patients of the COCA developed cholecystitis requiring treatment.
CONCLUSION: Comparison of clinical and imaging findings between patients with and without CA embolization prior to RE identified no predictors of radiogenic or ischemic cholecystitis after RE. Our study provides no evidence for a benefit of prophylactic CA embolization before RE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective comparison of 37 patients with UCCA versus 68 patients with COCA in terms of clinical findings (CRP, leukocyte count, body temperature, upper abdominal pain) and morphologic imaging parameters associated with cholecystitis (gallbladder (GB) wall thickness, free fluid in GB bed, bremsstrahlung SPECT) after EVA, after RE, and at 6-week follow-up.
RESULTS: At none of the 3 time points (EVA, RE, 6-week follow-up) was there any significant difference in CRP, leukocyte count, body temperature, or upper abdominal pain between the UCCA and COCA group. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to GB wall thickness, fluid in the GB bed, and bremsstrahlung in SPECT. One patient of the UCCA group and two patients of the COCA developed cholecystitis requiring treatment.
CONCLUSION: Comparison of clinical and imaging findings between patients with and without CA embolization prior to RE identified no predictors of radiogenic or ischemic cholecystitis after RE. Our study provides no evidence for a benefit of prophylactic CA embolization before RE.