Transradial versus Transfemoral Access for Patients with Liver Cancer Undergoing Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy: Patient Experience and Procedural Complications

PurposeTo determine whether transradial access (TRA) is a more favorable and safe method for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) than transfemoral access (TFA).Materials and MethodsRetrospective and prospective cohorts of patients with liver cancer were included. Sixty-seven patients in the retrospective cohort were divided into 2 groups: (a) TRA-HAIC (n = 24) and (b) TFA-HAIC (n = 43). Another 33 patients were prospectively enrolled to receive both TRA and TFA for HAIC in a crossover design. Prolonged arterial access was required for up to 48 hours. The primary endpoint was quality of life (QOL) using the visual analog scale. The secondary endpoints mainly included procedural success, adverse events, and operation time.ResultsPatient QOL measures revealed significantly lower scores of indices in the TRA-HAIC group than in the TFA-HAIC group in the retrospective cohort (all P < .001). The significant improvement of the QOL indices by TRA-HAIC, such as overall discomfort (P = .019) and pain at the access site (P = .018), was validated in the prospective cohort. The satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the TRA-HAIC group than in the TFA-HAIC group, and patients preferred TRA-HAIC (P < .001). Radial artery occlusion (RAO) as an access-related adverse event occurred more frequently in both the retrospective and prospective cohorts (38% and 33%, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). Notably, the multivariate analysis of RAO-associated factors showed that enoxaparin use was significantly correlated with a reduced risk of postprocedural RAO (P = .036).ConclusionsTRA was superior to TFA in patient experience. However, because of the high incidence of access-related adverse events, especially for RAO with a total incidence of 35%, strategies should be optimized for patients to benefit from TRA in future procedures.