Literature DB >> 25823575

Prophylactic embolization of the cystic artery prior to radioembolization of liver malignancies--an evaluation of necessity.

Maciej Powerski1, Anke Busse, Max Seidensticker, Frank Fischbach, Ricarda Seidensticker, Katharina Strach, Oliver Dudeck, Jens Ricke, Maciej Pech.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25823575     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-015-1088-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  4 in total

1.  Yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-centre prognostic factors analysis.

Authors:  C Floridi; F Pesapane; S A Angileri; D De Palma; F Fontana; F Caspani; A Barile; A Del Sole; C Masciocchi; G Lucignani; G Carrafiello
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 2.  Recognizing and Managing Adverse Events in Y-90 Radioembolization.

Authors:  Grace L Laidlaw; Guy E Johnson
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 1.780

Review 3.  Radioembolization: Is Prophylactic Embolization of Hepaticoenteric Arteries Necessary? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alicia S Borggreve; Anadeijda J E M C Landman; Coco M J Vissers; Charlotte D De Jong; Marnix G E H Lam; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Jip F Prince
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Radioembolisation in Europe: A Survey Amongst CIRSE Members.

Authors:  Margot T M Reinders; Etienne Mees; Maciej J Powerski; Rutger C G Bruijnen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam; Maarten L J Smits
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.740

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.