81
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

A Comparison of Adverse Events Among Radiofrequency Ablation, Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) and Drug-Eluting Bead TACE in Treating Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 5373-5382 | Published online: 05 Jul 2021
 

Abstract

Background

There has been very limited investigation regarding the comparison of adverse events (AEs) among radiofrequency ablation (RFA), conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), and drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) in treating HCC patients; therefore, the present study aimed to resolve this issue.

Methods

Two-hundred and forty-six HCC patients (with a total of 267 procedures [treatment times]) treated with RFA (73 patients with 79 procedures), cTACE (86 patients with 94 procedures), or DEB-TACE (87 patients with 94 procedures) were included. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The information on AEs was also retrieved and analyzed.

Results

Total AEs incidence was notably different among the RFA group, cTACE group, and DEB-TACE group and was the highest in cTACE group (86.2%), then in DEB-TACE group (76.6%), and the lowest in RFA group (63.3%). Regarding specific AEs incidence, the incidences of fever, fatigue, and nausea were distinctive among the three groups, while no distinctiveness was found in incidence of other AEs. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression revealed that cTACE (versus RFA) was independently correlated with increased risk of total AEs, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting; however, the interventional therapies were not independently correlated with the risk of pain, fever or constipation. Other independent predictive factors for total AEs risk were male gender, bronchial asthma, and disease duration.

Conclusion

cTACE resulted in the highest AEs incidence compared with RFA and DEB-TACE in treating HCC patients.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Henan Provincial Medical Science and Technique Foundation (No.2018020392).

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.