Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

French Interventional Radiology Centers’ Uptake of Transradial Approach and Outpatient Hepatocellular Carcinoma Intra-Arterial Treatments

  • Scientific Paper (Other)
  • Interventional Oncology
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 15 March 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the uptake of transradial approach (TRA) and outpatient setting for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among French interventional radiology centers.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study was based on a 34-question survey assessing center activity, radial access, and outpatient care. The survey was developed by a working group, tested by two external experts, and distributed to active members of two French radiological societies via a web-based self-reporting questionnaire in March 2022. The survey remained open for eight weeks, with two reminder emails sent to non-responders. Only one answer per center was considered.

Results

Of the 44 responding centers, 39% (17/44) performed TRA for TACE and/or TARE, with post-procedure patient comfort as main motivation. Among the 27 centers not performing TRA, 33% (9/27) reported a lack of technical experience, but all 27 intended to adopt TRA within two years. Only six centers performed TACE or TARE in an outpatient setting. Reasons limiting its implementation included TACE for HCC not being a suitable intervention (61%, 27/44) and organizational barriers (41%, 18/44). Among centers not performing outpatient TACE or TARE, 34% (13/38) said "No," 34% (13/38) said "Maybe," and 32% (12/38) said "Yes" when asked about adopting it within two years.

Conclusion

French interventional radiologists have low TRA uptake for HCC treatment, but TRA adoption potential exists. Respondents were uncertain about performing TACE or TARE in an outpatient setting within a 2-year horizon.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Abbreviations

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

TACE:

Transarterial chemoembolization

TARE:

Transarterial radioembolization

TRA:

Transradial approach

SFICV:

French society of interventional and cardiovascular imaging

SIAD:

French society of abdominal and gastrointestinal imaging

References

  1. Fritsche MR, Watchmaker JM, Lipnik AJ, et al. Outpatient Transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: review of a same-day discharge strategy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(4):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.11.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mitchell JW, O’Connell WG, Kisza P, et al. Safety and feasibility of outpatient transcatheter hepatic arterial embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(2):203–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.10.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nasser F, Cavalcante RN, Galastri FL, et al. Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads in a liver transplantation program. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(7):1012–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2014.02.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Prajapati HJ, Rafi S, El-Rayes BF, Kauh JS, Kooby DA, Kim HS. Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with doxorubicin drug-eluting bead transcatheter chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(10):1286–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iezzi R, Pompili M, Posa A, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral access for hepatic chemoembolization: intrapatient prospective single-center study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(9):1234–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.06.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yamada R, Bracewell S, Bassaco B, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in liver cancer embolization: randomized trial to assess patient satisfaction. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(1):38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.024PMID-29150395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu LB, Cedillo MA, Bishay V, et al. Patient experience and preference in transradial versus transfemoral access during transarterial radioembolization: a randomized single-center trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(3):414–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. Jacc Cardiovasc Intervent. 2009;2(11):1047–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016PMID-19926042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, et al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Jacc Cardiovasc Intervent. 2013;6(8):814–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010PMID-23968700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Benedictis MLD, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(2):349–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.04.034PMID-15261930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Posham R, Biederman DM, Patel RS, et al. Transradial approach for noncoronary interventions: a single-center review of safety and Feasibility in the first 1,500 cases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(2):159–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2015.10.026PMID-26706186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60404-2PMID-21470671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mamas MA, Ratib K, Routledge H, et al. Influence of access site selection on PCI-related adverse events in patients with STEMI: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2012;98(4):303. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300558PMID-22147900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brasselet C, Tassan S, Nazeyrollas P, Hamon M, Metz D. Randomised comparison of femoral versus radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention using abciximab in acute myocardial infarction: results of the FARMI trial. Heart. 2007;93(12):1556. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.117309PMID-17639099.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldberg SL, Renslo R, Sinow R, French WJ. Learning curve in the use of the radial artery as vascular access in the performance of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Catheter Cardio Diag. 1998;44(2):147–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0304(199806)44:2%3c147::aid-ccd5%3e3.0.co;2-6PMID-9637436.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gayed A, Yamada R, Bhatia S, et al. Society of interventional radiology quality improvement standards on radial artery access. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;32(5):761.e761-761.e721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.12.013PMID-33933252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dehghani P, Mohammad A, Bajaj R, et al. Mechanism and predictors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. Jacc Cardiovasc Intervent. 2009;2(11):1057–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.014PMID-19926044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Valsecchi O, Vassileva A, Musumeci G, et al. Failure of transradial approach during coronary interventions: anatomic considerations. Catheter Cardio Inte. 2006;67(6):870–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20732PMID-16649233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bertrand OF, Rao SV, Pancholy S, et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions results of the first international transradial practice survey. Jacc Cardiovasc Intervent. 2010;3(10):1022–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.07.013PMID-20965460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Iezzi R, Posa A, Bilhim T, Guimaraes M. Most common misconceptions about transradial approach in interventional radiology: results from an international survey. Diagnostic Intervent Radiol. 2021;27(5):649–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hadjivassiliou A, Cardarelli-Leite L, Jalal S, et al. Left distal transradial access (ldTRA): a comparative assessment of conventional and distal radial artery size. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43(6):850–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02485-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hsieh M-Y, Lin L, Tsai K-C, Wu C-C. Radial artery approach to salvage nonmaturing radiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(4):957–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0533-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yip H-K, Youssef AA, Chang W-N, et al. Feasibility and safety of transradial arterial approach for simultaneous right and left vertebral artery angiographic studies and stenting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30(5):840–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9051-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fohlen A, Tasu JP, Kobeiter H, Bartoli JM, Pelage JP, Guiu B. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a French national survey on current practices. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(9):527–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2018.03.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Steele JR, Wallace MJ, Hovsepian DM, et al. Guidelines for establishing a quality improvement program in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(5):617–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, Ruhter J, Epstein AM. Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1543–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hund HC, Frantz SK, Wu H, et al. Six-year evaluation of same-day discharge following conventional transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023;34(3):378–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2022.11.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. de Baere T, Ronot M, Chung JW, et al. Initiative on superselective conventional transarterial chemoembolization results (INSPIRE). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2022;45(10):1430–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Vanderbecq Q, Grégory J, Dana J, et al. Improving pain control during transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma performed under local anesthesia with multimodal analgesia. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2023;104(3):123–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.10.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Delicque J, Hermida M, Piron L, et al. Intra arterial treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of MELD score variations between radio-embolization and chemo-embolization. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019;100(11):689–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2019.05.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu SE, Charles HW, Park JS, Goldenberg AS, Deipolyi AR. Obesity conveys poor outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by transarterial chemoembolization. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.06.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gregory J, Tselikas L, Allimant C, et al. Defining textbook outcome for selective internal radiation therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: an international expert study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(3):921–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-06002-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maleux G, Albrecht T, Arnold D, et al. Predictive factors for adverse event outcomes after transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 resin microspheres in europe: results from the prospective observational CIRT study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03391-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gabr A, Kallini JR, Gates VL, et al. Same-day 90Y radioembolization: implementing a new treatment paradigm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(13):2353–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3438-xPMID-27315059.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Li MD, Chu KF, DePietro A, et al. Same-day yttrium-90 radioembolization: feasibility with resin microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(3):314–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lublóy Á. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):469. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the responders of the participating centers for taking the time to diligently complete the survey.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

    Jules Grégory, Maxime Ronot & Valérie Vilgrain

  2. Radiology Department, Hôpital Beaujon, AP-HP.Nord, FHU MOSAIC, 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92210, Clichy, France

    Jules Grégory, Maxime Ronot & Valérie Vilgrain

  3. Inserm INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France

    Jules Grégory

  4. Centre de Recherche sur L’Inflammation, Inserm, U1149, 75006, Paris, France

    Maxime Ronot & Valérie Vilgrain

  5. Department of Radiology, Nancy University Hospital, Université de Lorraine, 54500, Vandoeuvre-Lès-Nancy, France

    Valérie Laurent

  6. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Center, Hospital Gabriel Montpied, 58, Rue Montalembert, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Pascal Chabrot

  7. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave RoussyUniversité Paris-Saclay, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif, France

    Thierry de Baere

  8. Department of Diagnosis and Interventional Imaging, University Hospital of Nice, 151 Route de Saint Antoine de Ginestière, 06200, Nice, France

    Patrick Chevallier

  9. Département de Radiologie, centre hospitalier universitaire d’Angers, 4 rue Larrey, 49 933, Angers, France

    Christophe Aubé

  10. Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, Université d’Angers, 49 045, Angers, France

    Christophe Aubé

Authors
  1. Jules Grégory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxime Ronot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valérie Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pascal Chabrot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thierry de Baere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patrick Chevallier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Valérie Vilgrain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christophe Aubé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the French Society of Abdominal and Gastrointestinal Imaging (SIAD) and French Society of Interventional and Cardiovascular Imaging (SFICV)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jules Grégory.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Consent for Publication

For this type of study consent for publication is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: This article was originally published under a working title, ‘French Interventional Radiology Centers’ Uptake of Transradial Approach and Outpatient HCC Intra-Arterial Treatments’, which was refined to ‘French Interventional Radiology Centers’ Uptake of Transradial Approach and Outpatient Hepatocellular Carcinoma Intra-Arterial Treatments’.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grégory, J., Ronot, M., Laurent, V. et al. French Interventional Radiology Centers’ Uptake of Transradial Approach and Outpatient Hepatocellular Carcinoma Intra-Arterial Treatments. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 47, 432–440 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03578-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03578-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation