Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To determine whether transradial access (TRA) or transfemoral access (TFA) provides better patient satisfaction during intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for liver cancer.
Materials And Methods: This randomized, prospective, intra- and interpatient controlled trial compared TRA vs TFA accesses in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer undergoing IAT. After having one of each type of access (1 TRA and 1 TFA), all patients selected their preferred access regardless of whether a third intervention was indicated. The primary endpoint was patient access preference; secondary endpoints were access-related complications, procedure time, contrast agent volume, and radiation doses to the patient and operator. Patients were evaluated on postprocedure days 1 and 30.
Results: Fifty-five patients with liver cancer (31 hepatocellular carcinoma, 24 metastatic disease) were enrolled, and 124 IAT procedures were performed. A total of 36 patients underwent at least 1 intervention each with TRA and TFA. Of those, 29 patients (81%) preferred TRA and 7 (19%) preferred TFA (ratio, 4:1; P < .001). Median radiation exposure to the operator was significantly lower for TRA (5.5 mrem) vs TFA (13 mrem; P = .01). Incidences of complications, procedure time, contrast agent volume, and radiation exposure to patients were similar between groups.
Conclusions: TRA was the preferred access for the majority of patients and was associated with less radiation exposure to the operator. No differences were detected in incidence of adverse events, procedure time, contrast agent volume, or patient radiation exposure.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.024 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!