ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Incidence and risk factors of complications following microsecond and nanosecond pulsed electric field ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a 10-year multicenter cohort study.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the incidence and risk factors of complications following percutaneous pulsed electric field (PEF) ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk anatomical locations based on a 10-year multicenter experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study enrolled patients with HCC who underwent microsecond PEF (μsPEF) or nanosecond PEF (nsPEF) ablation across seven medical centers between July 2015 and July 2025. Complications were categorized into minor or major according to the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) modified classification system. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare the safety profiles between the μsPEF and nsPEF cohorts, and exploratory oncologic outcomes were assessed in patients with available follow-up data.
resultsA total of 304 patients (mean age, 58.0 ± 11.0 years; 241 males) with 338 tumors were included. The overall complication rate was 7.6% (23/304), and the major complication rate was 3.3% (10/304). Major complications primarily comprised perioperative systemic events, thoracic injuries in subphrenic tumors, and needle tract complications. Post-ablation syndrome (PAS) occurred in 18.8% of patients. Lower platelet count was identified as a significant risk factor for major complications (p = 0.007). After PSM, no significant differences were observed in major complication rates between the μsPEF and nsPEF cohorts (1.9% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.450).
conclusionsPercutaneous PEF ablation demonstrates a favorable safety profile for HCC in high-risk anatomical locations. Both μsPEF and nsPEF exhibit similar safety profiles. Although rare, major complications necessitate vigilant perioperative care and needle tract surveillance. KEY POINTS: Question The safety profile and complication patterns of pulsed electric field ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma remain insufficiently characterized in large-scale multicenter cohorts. Findings In this 10-year multicenter study, major complications occurred in 3.3% of patients, with no significant differences observed between microsecond and nanosecond pulsed electric field cohorts. Clinical relevance Pulsed electric field ablation is a safe option for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk locations, though vigilant perioperative care and needle tract surveillance remain essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42627535What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.