PURPOSE: Analysis of preprocedural factors that may be helpful in predicting the severity of pain and nausea after hepatic arterial embolization (HAE) for liver neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, 62 patients (33 men, 29 women) underwent 130 palliative lobar HAEs for unresectable liver neoplasms. The hepatic lobe was embolized with 150-250-microm polyvinyl alcohol particulates with or without lipiodol and/or chemotherapeutic agents. Postembolization pain was rated at rest and during movement with use of an 11-point verbal pain scale, and postembolization nausea was assessed with use of a four-point verbal scale, each at two separate time periods. Daily morphine use was also recorded. Primary analysis was made using the first embolization procedure. One-way analysis of variance and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to identify associated predictors. Plots of the outcomes versus the pre-embolization liver function tests and sensitivities and specificities were used to identify the strength of the associations for prediction purposes. A secondary analysis was performed in patients who underwent multiple embolizations. RESULTS: No strong categorical predictors were found from the ANOVA on the severity of postembolization pain or nausea. There were significant (P < .05) associations between the pre-embolization liver function tests and the pain outcomes only. However, while these laboratory values demonstrate strong associations with resultant pain, they are not strong predictors of pain and morphine requirements for any individual patient. The morphine requirements were highly associated (P < .0001) with the pain scores at rest and with movement. The authors did not find significant differences on any of the pain outcomes or morphine requirements between the first and second embolizations. CONCLUSION: Laboratory values and patient age are not predictors for the severity of postembolization pain and nausea. Postembolization pain is a significant complication and poses a continuing challenge to the physician with regards to patient management.
PURPOSE: Analysis of preprocedural factors that may be helpful in predicting the severity of pain and nausea after hepatic arterial embolization (HAE) for liver neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, 62 patients (33 men, 29 women) underwent 130 palliative lobar HAEs for unresectable liver neoplasms. The hepatic lobe was embolized with 150-250-microm polyvinyl alcohol particulates with or without lipiodol and/or chemotherapeutic agents. Postembolization pain was rated at rest and during movement with use of an 11-point verbal pain scale, and postembolization nausea was assessed with use of a four-point verbal scale, each at two separate time periods. Daily morphine use was also recorded. Primary analysis was made using the first embolization procedure. One-way analysis of variance and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to identify associated predictors. Plots of the outcomes versus the pre-embolization liver function tests and sensitivities and specificities were used to identify the strength of the associations for prediction purposes. A secondary analysis was performed in patients who underwent multiple embolizations. RESULTS: No strong categorical predictors were found from the ANOVA on the severity of postembolization pain or nausea. There were significant (P < .05) associations between the pre-embolization liver function tests and the pain outcomes only. However, while these laboratory values demonstrate strong associations with resultant pain, they are not strong predictors of pain and morphine requirements for any individual patient. The morphine requirements were highly associated (P < .0001) with the pain scores at rest and with movement. The authors did not find significant differences on any of the pain outcomes or morphine requirements between the first and second embolizations. CONCLUSION: Laboratory values and patient age are not predictors for the severity of postembolization pain and nausea. Postembolization pain is a significant complication and poses a continuing challenge to the physician with regards to patient management.
Authors: Diane K Reyes; Josephina A Vossen; Ihab R Kamel; Nilofer S Azad; Tamara A Wahlin; Michael S Torbenson; Michael A Choti; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: Cancer J Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Robert Martin; Javier Irurzun; Jordi Munchart; Igor Trofimov; Alexander Scupchenko; Cliff Tatum; Govindarajan Narayanan Journal: Korean J Hepatol Date: 2011-03
Authors: Jose Hugo Mendes Luz; Paula M Luz; Henrique S Martin; Hugo R Gouveia; Raphal Braz Levigard; Felipe Diniz Nogueira; Bernardo Caetano Rodrigues; Tiago Nepomuceno de Miranda; Marcelo Henrique Mamede Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: María Muros-Ortega; Ma Sacramento Díaz-Carrasco; Antonio Capel; Miguel Ángel Calleja; Fernando Martínez Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2013-08-09