Conventional versus Hepatic Arteriography and C-Arm CT-Guided Ablation of Liver Tumors (HepACAGA): A Comparative Analysis

Purpose: Hepatic Arteriography and C-Arm CT-Guided Ablation of liver tumors (HepACAGA) is a novel technique, combining hepatic–arterial contrast injection with C-arm CT-guided navigation. This study compared the outcomes of the HepACAGA technique with patients treated with conventional ultrasound (US) and/or CT-guided ablation. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) treated with conventional US-/CT-guided ablation between 1 January 2015, and 31 December 2020, and patients treated with HepACAGA between 1 January 2021, and 31 October 2023, were included. The primary outcome was local tumor recurrence-free survival (LTRFS). Secondary outcomes included the local tumor recurrence (LTR) rate and complication rate. Results: 68 patients (120 tumors) were included in the HepACAGA cohort and 53 patients (78 tumors) were included in the conventional cohort. In both cohorts, HCC was the predominant tumor type (63% and 73%, respectively). In the HepACAGA cohort, all patients received microwave ablation. Radiofrequency ablation was the main ablation technique in the conventional group (78%). LTRFS was significantly longer for patients treated with the HepACAGA technique (p = 0.015). Both LTR and the complication rate were significantly lower in the HepACAGA cohort compared to the conventional cohort (LTR 5% vs. 26%, respectively; p < 0.001) (complication rate 4% vs. 15%, respectively; p = 0.041). Conclusions: In this study, the HepACAGA technique was safer and more effective than conventional ablation for HCC and CRLM, resulting in lower rates of local tumor recurrence, longer local tumor recurrence-free survival and fewer procedure-related complications

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable