Propofol versus midazolam for sedation during radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists for radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Propofol sedation was administered by interventional radiologists in 72 patients (85 procedures, 93 tumors) during RFA for HCC between August 2018 and December 2020. Interventional radiologists equipped with adequate knowledge and skills in sedation and respiratory management were responsible for sedation. Sedation was carefully assessed based on vital signs, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, consciousness status, and bispectral index. The primary endpoint was the incidence of sedation-related complications, which were evaluated separately as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. Secondary endpoints were technical success rate, ablation-related complications, and local tumor control rate. Technical success was defined as completion of ablation in the planned area. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Sedation-related complications, technical success rate, and ablation-related complications were evaluated on a procedure basis, and local tumor control was evaluated on a tumor basis.

RESULTS

Respiratory and cardiovascular complications were observed in eight (8/85, 9.4%) and two (2/85, 2.4%) patients, respectively. Four patients required the jaw thrust maneuver due to glossoptosis, whereas a decrease in oxygen saturation to < 90% was recorded in the other four patients. However, these were temporary, and none required manual ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Bradycardia (< 50 bpm) was detected in two patients; one recovered immediately without treatment, whereas the other rapidly improved after atropine sulfate administration. No severe hypotension (< 80 mmHg) was observed. The technical success rate was 100% (85/85). Grade 3 ablation-related complications were identified in three patients (3/85, 3.5%). The local tumor control rate was 95.7% (89/93).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation can be safely administered by interventional radiologists during RFA for HCC. Although it requires special safety considerations, it may be a sedation option during hepatic RFA.

Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) for Ultrasound-Guided Liver Radiofrequency Ablation

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a well-studied treatment option for locally non-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Sedation is of crucial interest as it enables safe and pain-free procedures. Whether the type of sedation has an impact on procedural outcome is still not well investigated.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on patients undergoing liver RFA for various oncological conditions. Procedures were conducted in a non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) setting. Procedural-related complications and short-term oncological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (mean age 71.5 y, 80% male) were treated for HCC (26), CRLM (6) and gastric cancer metastases (3). Mean lesion size was 21 mm (SD ± 10.1 mm), and the most common tumor localization was the right hepatic lobe. RFA was performed in a step-up sedation approach, with subcutaneous lidocaine injection prior to needle placement and subsequent deep sedation during ablation. No anesthesia-related early or late complications occurred. One patient presented with pleural effusion due to a large ablation zone and was treated conservatively. Local tumor-free survival after 1 and 6 months was 100% in all cases where a curative RFA approach was intended.

CONCLUSIONS

NORA for liver RFA comes with high patient acceptance and tolerance, and optimal postoperative outcomes and oncologic results.

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Outpatient percutaneous image-guided microwave ablation with monitored anesthesia care: An exploratory study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and periprocedural perception of pain for a combination approach of moderate and deep sedation for image-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of both primary and secondary malignant lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 33 image-guided percutaneous microwave ablation procedures performed on 33 patients in an outpatient-based interventional radiology center. We used a combination of midazolam, fentanyl, propofol, and/or ketamine to achieve mild to moderate sedation for the procedure, and also to achieve deeper sedation as needed for the ablation portion.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all image-guided percutaneous microwave ablation procedures. Mean procedural time was 49.4 min. There were no major complications. Intraprocedural pain was absent in all patients. All 33 patients were deemed fit for discharge within 30 min following the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The combination approach of moderate and deep sedation for anesthesia during image-guided percutaneous microwave ablation is an advantageous option. This approach has a strong safety profile, good technical success, short procedure times, low levels of intraprocedural and post-procedural pain, and short recovery from anesthesia.

Safety and efficacy of pentazocine–midazolam combination for pain and anxiety relief in radiofrequency ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy is frequently used as first‐line treatment for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RFA is often associated with pain; however, no definitive solution has been established for its relief. We retrospectively analyzed the safety and efficacy of the combination of pentazocine and midazolam to relieve pain experienced by HCC patients undergoing RFA.

Methods

We studied 77 patients with 98 HCCs treated with RFA between January 2015 and August 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the sedative‐free group, which included those who received pentazocine alone, and the pentazocine–midazolam group, which included those who received a combination of pentazocine and midazolam. The degrees of analgesia and sedation were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS), respectively. Other parameters such as treatment time, awakening time, midazolam dosage, vital signs, local recurrence rate, and time to recurrence were also examined.

Results

The median NRS score and RASS score were significantly lower in the pentazocine–midazolam group. Ninety‐five percent of patients in the pentazocine–midazolam group had no memory of the RFA session. The treatment time and awakening time were prolonged for the pentazocine–midazolam group. No significant differences in oxygen saturation, recurrence rates, and time to local recurrence were observed between groups.

Conclusion

A combination of pentazocine and midazolam is safe and effective for pain and anxiety relief experienced by patients undergoing RFA for local treatment of HCC.

Impact of propofol sedation on the diagnostic accuracy of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard to evaluate the presence and severity of portal hypertension. The procedure is generally safe and well tolerated, but nevertheless, some patients demand for sedation. However, it is unknown whether propofol sedation would impair the accuracy of portal pressure measurements.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study including cirrhotic patients with suspected portal hypertension undergoing invasive measurement of HVPG. Measurements of HVPG were performed in awake condition as well as under sedation with propofol infusion.

RESULTS

In total, 37 patients were included. Mean HVPG in awake condition was 15.9 mmHg (IQR 13-19) and during sedation 14.1 mmHg (IQR 12-17). While measures of free hepatic vein pressure (FHVP) were not altered after propofol sedation (p = 0.34), wedged hepatic vein pressure values (WHVP) decreased in an average by  2.05 mmHg (95% CI - 2.46 to - 1.16; p < 0.001) which was proportional to the magnitude of HVPG. In 31 out of 37 patients (83.8%), portal hypertension with HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg was found. Under sedation with propofol, two patients (5.4%) with borderline values would have been incorrectly classified as < 12 mmHg. After adjustment for the average difference of - 10%, all patients were correctly classified. Intraclass correlation coefficient between HVPG measurement in awake condition and under propofol sedation was 0.927 (95% CI 0.594-0.975).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation during HVPG measurements is generally safe, however it may lead to relevant alterations of HVPG readings.