Frequency of and Risk Factors for Complications After Liver Radiofrequency Ablation Under CT Fluoroscopic Guidance in 1500 Sessions: Single-Center Experience

Department of Interventional Radiology, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu Mie 514-8507, Japan.
American Journal of Roentgenology (Impact Factor: 2.73). 03/2013; 200(3):658-64. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8691
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this article is to retrospectively evaluate the frequency of and risk factors for complications after liver radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
This was a retrospective study of 656 patients (with 1755 liver tumors) who underwent 1500 CT fluoroscopy-guided liver RFA sessions. Of those patients, 501 had primary liver tumor and 155 had liver metastases. Mortality and treatment-related complications were documented. Complications were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Major complications were defined as grade 3 or higher adverse events. Factors affecting frequent complications with a frequency of 1% or more were detected using multivariate analysis.
Two deaths (0.1% [2/1500]) occurred. One patient died of liver failure subsequent to hemorrhage, and the other died of liver failure. The major complication rate was 2.8% (42/1500). The most frequent major complication was hemorrhage (1.1% [16/1500]). The absence of arterial embolization before RFA (p < 0.01), low hemoglobin level (p < 0.04), and elevated serum creatinine level (p < 0.04) were identified as significant risk factors for major hemorrhage. The minor complication rate was 17.1% (257/1500). Pneumothorax (7.7% [116/1500]) was the most frequent minor complication, followed by hemorrhage (7.0% [105/1500]). A transthoracic approach (p < 0.01) and subphrenic tumor location (p < 0.01) were significant risk factors for pneumothorax, and the use of a cluster needle (p < 0.02) and multiple tumors (p < 0.01) were significant risk factors for minor hemorrhage.
CT fluoroscopy-guided RFA is a safe procedure with an acceptably low rate of major complications for liver tumor treatment. Factors identified in this study will help to stratify high-risk patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Haruyuki Takaki, Dec 08, 2014
1 Follower
19 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate whether iatrogenic hemorrhage can be prevented by intrahepatic tract ablation following radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy for hepatic malignancies. Methods: A retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospective database in a single institution was conducted. The incidence of postprocedural complications was compared in two groups: one with cauterization of the needle tracts after RFA and the other without. Results: The complication rates of intraperitoneal hemorrhage were 1.05% (4/380) and 0.92% (6/652) in the nonablation group and the ablation group, respectively (p = 0.90). All of these 10 patients with iatrogenic bleeding were classified as Child-Pugh grade A. Among the 15 hemodialysis patients in this study, hemorrhage was seen in 2 (13.3%), compared with 8 (0.79%) of the nonhemodialysis patients (p = 0.0002). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of other complications including pleural effusion, serous ascites, pneumothorax, hemothorax, hepatic infarction, bile duct injury and pericardial effusion between the two groups. Gastrointestinal perforation, peritonitis or tumor seeding were not observed. Conclusion: Our study found a high incidence of bleeding after RFA among hemodialysis patients. Irrespective of tract ablation being after RFA, iatrogenic hemorrhage appeared to be equivalent in this population.
    Digestive Diseases 11/2013; 31(5-6):480-4. DOI:10.1159/000355254 · 2.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal metastases to the liver are increasingly being detected and accurately characterized at an earlier stage and even at the subcentimeter level. The oncological case for surgical resection of this disease is widely accepted. The advent of smaller volume disease has encouraged the development of in situ ablative technologies over the last two decades and the oncological efficacy of these procedures has continued to improve through stepwise developments in ablation devices and image guidance. This article provides an overview of these techniques, currently available and future technologies, and the imaging findings encountered. It also sets out the current position image-guided ablation merits alongside chemotherapy and surgical resection. In selected cases ablation for colorectal metastases can produce oncological outcomes equivalent to surgery and critically with less morbidity in an increasingly older patient population. We examine whether with careful patient selection, optimal technology, meticulous technique, and diligent follow-up, consistently reproducible high quality outcomes will be achieved in the next few years.
    Abdominal Imaging 06/2013; 38(6). DOI:10.1007/s00261-013-0020-x · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the treatment options for colorectal liver metastases continue to expand, ablation has been integrated into the multidisciplinary management of this disease. Following the success of earlier modalities such as cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation, more options have emerged, including use of microwaves, irreversible electroporation, laser therapy, and focused ultrasound. Indications have also widened from unresectable disease to include treatment with curative intent, often in combination with surgery and systemic and regional therapies. Randomized evidence is relatively lacking overall, but there are ample retrospective data to support the use of ablation. Good patient selection is important, and the treating clinician must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each modality to ensure safety and maximize efficacy. In this review, we discuss the principles of the more commonly used ablation techniques and summarize the evidence, with emphasis on recent data.
    Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 06/2014; 10(2):239-248. DOI:10.1007/s11888-014-0214-9
Show more