RESUMO
INTRODUCTION@#This study aimed to assess safety, local tumour progression (LTP) and risk factors for LTP after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumours in a single centre.@*METHODS@#All consecutive patients treated with RFA for liver tumours between January 2009 and October 2012 were included. Previously treated lesions that progressed were excluded. Using electronic medical records, the following data was captured: patient demographics, pre-procedural laboratory results, Child-Pugh status, tumour characteristics, development of tumoral seeding, RFA complications and LTP. Possible risk factors for LTP were identified using Cox regression.@*RESULTS@#In total, 555 liver tumours were treated in 337 patients. 483 (87.0%) hepatocellular carcinomas, 52 (9.4%) colorectal metastases and 20 (3.6%) other tumour types were treated. Mean tumour size was 2.1 ± 1.1 (range 0.4-6.8) cm. Mean follow-up duration was 387 days. 416 (75.0%) lesions had no LTP at the last imaging. 70 (12.6%) patients had minor complications requiring observation, while 7 (1.3%) patients had significant complications requiring prolonged hospitalisation or further interventions. Only one case of tumour seeding was detected. Using multivariate Cox regression, the following factors were statistically significant in predicting LTP: hilar location (relative ratio [RR] 3.988), colorectal metastases (RR 2.075), size (RR 1.290) and younger age (RR 0.982).@*CONCLUSION@#RFA of liver tumours is safe and effective, with a low significant complication rate of 1.3%. Hilar lesions are most prone to LTP, followed by lesions that were larger in size and colorectal metastases. 75.0% of patients showed no LTP at the last follow-up.
RESUMO
<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is recommended for prognostic and therapeutic indications in centres with adequate resources and expertise. Our study aimed to evaluate the quality of HVPG measurements at our centre before and after introduction of a standardised protocol, and the clinical relevance of the HVPG to variceal bleeding in cirrhotics.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>HVPG measurements performed at Singapore General Hospital from 2005-2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Criteria for quality HVPG readings were triplicate readings, absence of negative pressure values and variability of ≤ 2 mmHg. The rate of variceal bleeding was compared in cirrhotics who achieved a HVPG response to pharmacotherapy (reduction of the HVPG to < 12 mmHg or by ≥ 20% of baseline) and those who did not.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>126 HVPG measurements were performed in 105 patients (mean age 54.7 ± 11.4 years; 55.2% men). 80% had liver cirrhosis and 20% had non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH). The mean overall HVPG was 13.5 ± 7.2 mmHg, with a significant difference between the cirrhosis and NCPH groups (p < 0.001). The proportion of quality readings significantly improved after the protocol was introduced. HVPG response was achieved in 28 (33.3%, n = 84) cirrhotics. Nine had variceal bleeding over a median follow-up of 29 months. The rate of variceal bleeding was significantly lower in HVPG responders compared to nonresponders (p = 0.025).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The quality of HVPG measurements in our centre improved after the introduction of a standardised protocol. A HVPG response can prognosticate the risk of variceal bleeding in cirrhotics.</p>
