1
|
Sehgal K, Taylor F, Van Wees M, Li K, De Boo DW, Slater LA. What is the Safe Observation Period for Image-Guided Percutaneous Liver Biopsies? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2024; 47:1327-1334. [PMID: 39078495 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-024-03800-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2024] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/31/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Current observation period post-liver biopsy is typically 4 h. This study investigates the safety of reducing the observation period after percutaneous liver biopsy. METHODS Patients who underwent percutaneous liver biopsy between 2017 and 2022 in the Radiology Department of a tertiary centre were included in this retrospective, institutional review board-approved study. Patient demographics, procedure details and complication data were collected from the electronic medical records. Complications were graded according to the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification. Conditional survival probabilities were calculated for the 4-h observation period. RESULTS Among 1125 patients, 275 complications were seen; 255 grade 1, 15 grade 2 and five grade 3. Post-procedural pain represented 93% (256) of complications, whereas post-procedural haemorrhage occurred in 17 (6%) patients: 13 were of grade 2 severity requiring prolonged observation, and 4 were of grade 3 severity. Of these grade 3 complications, two required blood transfusion whereas two required embolization. A total of 215 (78%) complications occurred within 1 h, 244 (89%) within 2 h of observation. 16 (94%) of 17 post-procedural haemorrhages occurred within 2 h post-biopsy. If complication-free after 2 h, the probability of experiencing a complication within the next 2 h was 4%. CONCLUSION The majority of complications were identified within 2 h of observation. Complications recognised after this period were largely pain-related, with only one grade 3 complication seen (post-procedural haemorrhage).Our findings suggest 2 h of post-procedural observation may be safe. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level 2B, Retrospective Cohort Study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kunal Sehgal
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
| | - Fergus Taylor
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia
| | - Matthew Van Wees
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia
| | - Kenny Li
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia
| | - Diederick Willem De Boo
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Lee Anne Slater
- Department of Radiology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Melbourne, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aslan HS, Arslan M, Alver KH, Demirci M, Korkmaz M, Esen K, Turmak M, Deniz MA, Tekinhatun M, Kisbet T, Arıbal S, Önder H, Ozdemir M, Ozturk MH, Urfalı FE. Is a two-hour monitoring period sufficient and safe for patients undergoing ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsy?: A prospective and multicenter experience. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND : JCU 2024. [PMID: 39225264 DOI: 10.1002/jcu.23795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2024] [Revised: 07/31/2024] [Accepted: 08/08/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate whether patients undergoing percutaneous liver mass biopsy (PLMB) can be safely discharged following a two-hour monitoring period. METHODS A multi-center prospective analysis was conducted for 375 patients (196 males and 179 females), mean age 63 ± 12.45 years (range 37-89) who underwent PLMB between August 2023 and March 2024. Patients were monitored for 24 h, and complications were classified as minor or major. The timing of complications was categorized into three groups: within the first two hours, between the 2nd and 24th hours, and within 1 week after 24 hours. RESULTS Minor complications occurred in 18.93% (71/375) and major complications in 2.13% (8/375). Most minor complications (80.2%, 57/71) appeared within the first two hours, 12.7% (9/71) between 2 and 24 h, and 7.1% (5/71) after 24 h. All major complications (62.5%, 5/8) except late-onset cases, occurred within the first two hours. No major complications occurred between 2 and 24 h. Late-onset major complications occurred in 37.5% (3/8) after 24 h. CONCLUSION The two-hour monitoring period did not adversely impact patient management regarding minor complications and is safe for identifying all major complications except for late-onset ones. Extending the post-biopsy recovery period does not significantly improve patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Halil Serdar Aslan
- Department of Radiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Muhammet Arslan
- Department of Radiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Kadir Han Alver
- Department of Radiology, Denizli State Hospital, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Mahmut Demirci
- Department of Radiology, Denizli State Hospital, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Korkmaz
- Department of Radiology, Kutahya Healthy Science University Faculty of Medicine, Kutahya, Turkey
| | - Kaan Esen
- Department of Radiology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Turmak
- Department of Radiology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Akif Deniz
- Department of Radiology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Tekinhatun
- Department of Radiology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Turkey
| | - Tanju Kisbet
- Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Prof Dr Cemil Tascıoglu City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Serkan Arıbal
- Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Prof Dr Cemil Tascıoglu City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Hakan Önder
- Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Prof Dr Cemil Tascıoglu City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Ozdemir
- Department of Radiology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Halil Ozturk
- Department of Radiology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kelly L, Simon P, Nash A, Thompson J, Affronti ML. Reducing Recovery Times in Outpatient Liver Biopsies: Role of the GI Nurse. Gastroenterol Nurs 2022; 45:238-243. [PMID: 35833740 DOI: 10.1097/sga.0000000000000646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
This project is aimed to identify whether recovery times could be reduced in patients undergoing an outpatient liver biopsy. Liver biopsies are typically performed in a hospital setting, and many facilities require patients to recover for multiple hours, sometimes ranging from 4 to 6 hours. This can discourage the patient from undergoing the biopsy. Multiple studies have examined recovery times and determined patients can safely recover and be discharged within 1-2 hours post-liver biopsy. In this retrospective review, the data of 60 outpatients who underwent a liver biopsy from June to December 2020 were analyzed. Analysis included comparing vital signs and symptoms at the 2-hour recovery period and 4-hour discharge time also to see whether there were any hospital admissions 1 week post-liver biopsy. Descriptive statistics were utilized for the data collected in this study. Results demonstrated that after 2 hours, 55 (91.7%) patients had vital signs within safe parameters, pain less than 5 on a 10-point pain scale and denied any other symptoms. The remaining five patients (8.3%) did not meet discharge criteria at the 2-hour mark because of pain greater than 5 on the pain scale yet were still discharged safely at the 4-hour mark.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Kelly
- Lisa Kelly, FNP-C, RN-MSN, is Doctoral Student at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; Nurse Practitioner, Interventional Radiology at Atrium Health Cabarrus in Concord, North Carolina
- Peter Simon, MD, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Angela Nash, DHA, MSPAS, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Julie Thompson, PhD, is Committee Member, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Mary Lou Affronti, DNP, RN, MHSc, ANP, FAAN, is DNP Project Chair, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Peter Simon
- Lisa Kelly, FNP-C, RN-MSN, is Doctoral Student at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; Nurse Practitioner, Interventional Radiology at Atrium Health Cabarrus in Concord, North Carolina
- Peter Simon, MD, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Angela Nash, DHA, MSPAS, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Julie Thompson, PhD, is Committee Member, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Mary Lou Affronti, DNP, RN, MHSc, ANP, FAAN, is DNP Project Chair, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Angela Nash
- Lisa Kelly, FNP-C, RN-MSN, is Doctoral Student at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; Nurse Practitioner, Interventional Radiology at Atrium Health Cabarrus in Concord, North Carolina
- Peter Simon, MD, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Angela Nash, DHA, MSPAS, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Julie Thompson, PhD, is Committee Member, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Mary Lou Affronti, DNP, RN, MHSc, ANP, FAAN, is DNP Project Chair, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Julie Thompson
- Lisa Kelly, FNP-C, RN-MSN, is Doctoral Student at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; Nurse Practitioner, Interventional Radiology at Atrium Health Cabarrus in Concord, North Carolina
- Peter Simon, MD, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Angela Nash, DHA, MSPAS, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Julie Thompson, PhD, is Committee Member, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Mary Lou Affronti, DNP, RN, MHSc, ANP, FAAN, is DNP Project Chair, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Mary Lou Affronti
- Lisa Kelly, FNP-C, RN-MSN, is Doctoral Student at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina; Nurse Practitioner, Interventional Radiology at Atrium Health Cabarrus in Concord, North Carolina
- Peter Simon, MD, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Angela Nash, DHA, MSPAS, is Committee Member, Charlotte Radiology, Concord, North Carolina
- Julie Thompson, PhD, is Committee Member, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Mary Lou Affronti, DNP, RN, MHSc, ANP, FAAN, is DNP Project Chair, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lewis JI, Patel NJ, Williams EA, Bowman AW. Prophylactic Intravenous Access: Is It Necessary for Renal Transplant Biopsies? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2019; 50:156-158. [PMID: 31611010 DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2019.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2019] [Revised: 08/29/2019] [Accepted: 09/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Percutaneous renal transplant biopsies have long been a safe and effective procedure with bleeding being the most common significant complication. Only a few studies, however, have addressed the need for intravenous access prior to the procedure. OBJECTIVES We postulate that the number of patients requiring intravenous resuscitation after a routine renal transplant biopsy is sufficiently low enough to prove that eliminating pre-procedural peripheral IV placement will have no negative impact on patient safety and could improve departmental efficiency. METHODS This is a retrospective analysis of complications that occurred in patients who underwent routine percutaneous renal transplant biopsies at an academic center. Patients were divided into two groups: the IV cohort that had peripheral IV access placed before the procedure (n=1318) and the no-IV cohort that did not (n=492). RESULTS This is a retrospective analysis of complications that occurred in patients who underwent routine percutaneous renal transplant biopsies at an academic center. Patients were divided into two groups: the IV cohort that had peripheral IV access placed before the procedure (n=1318) and the no-IV cohort that did not (n=492). CONCLUSIONS Placement of prophylactic peripheral IV access in patients undergoing routine renal transplant biopsies does not significantly impact the rate of biopsy complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob I Lewis
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Neema J Patel
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | | | | |
Collapse
|