Primary liver cancer remains a major cause of cancer–related morbidity and mortality worldwide, and hepatocellular carcinoma accounts for most cases encountered in clinical practice. Many patients are diagnosed at an intermediate or advanced stage, when surgical resection, liver transplantation, or local ablation is no longer feasible. Liver–directed interventional treatments have therefore become an important component of multidisciplinary management. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated the expanding role of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with large or unresectable tumors1. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has also emerged as an important regional treatment option, particularly for patients with advanced disease or vascular invasion2,3. Comparative imaging and treatment studies have further supported the growing use of these procedures in contemporary liver cancer care4. The choice between TACE and HAIC is influenced by tumor size and distribution, vascular invasion, liver function, previous treatment, and the anticipated balance between tumor control and treatment burden. A randomized phase III trial suggested that HAIC may provide an alternative to TACE for selected patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma5. Other comparative studies have evaluated liver injury, treatment safety, and clinical efficacy following HAIC, TACE, or sequential treatment6,7. Propensity–score analyses have also examined combined TACE–HAIC strategies in patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis8. Additional studies have explored HAIC regimens for patients who are unsuitable for or refractory to TACE9. Together, these advances have increased the number of patients receiving repeated or intensified arterial interventions and have placed greater demands on peri–interventional nursing care.
The therapeutic landscape has become more complex as HAIC and TACE are increasingly combined with targeted agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors. HAIC combined with toripalimab has been evaluated as an alternative systemic–regional strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma10. Similar combination approaches involving lenvatinib and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors have also been investigated11. Comparative studies continue to assess TACE and HAIC in patients with macrovascular invasion12, while multicenter cohorts have examined combined arterial and systemic regimens in patients with high tumor burden13. Conversion–treatment studies have further highlighted the importance of patient selection and supportive management during intensive multimodal therapy14. Although these strategies may improve tumor control in appropriately selected patients, they may also be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, pain, fatigue, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, and generalized weakness during hospitalization. Symptom severity varies with treatment type, chemotherapy regimen, extent of embolization, tumor burden, liver function, prior treatment, and individual susceptibility. Studies of high–tumor–burden populations have shown that treatment history and regimen intensity can influence both tolerance and recovery15,16. Meta–analytic and comparative evidence also indicate that outcomes differ between TACE and HAIC pathways17,18. Surgical conversion and sequential treatment studies further illustrate the cumulative burden associated with repeated liver–directed therapy19,20. These findings emphasize the need for supportive nursing strategies that can be applied flexibly across different interventional pathways.
Symptoms after TACE or HAIC often occur as an interacting cluster rather than as isolated events. Persistent nausea may reduce oral intake and aggravate fatigue; abdominal pain may interfere with sleep and mobilization; and poor sleep may further impair appetite and emotional well–being. Pharmacologic management with antiemetics, analgesics, corticosteroids, acid–suppressive agents, sedatives, and nutritional support remains essential, but symptom relief may be incomplete when several symptoms occur simultaneously. Additional medication may also contribute to constipation, dizziness, sedation, gastrointestinal discomfort, or drug interactions, particularly in older patients and those with reduced liver function. Auricular acupressure is a noninvasive complementary nursing intervention in which vaccaria seed patches or similar devices are applied to selected auricular points to provide sustained mechanical stimulation21. Controlled studies have examined its potential effects on chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting and postoperative symptom relief22,23. Other studies have explored possible benefits for cancer–related fatigue, sleep disturbance, and broader symptom management24,25.
Integrating auricular acupressure with routine peri–interventional nursing care is necessary because it is intended as an adjunct rather than a replacement for standard symptom management. Patients undergoing TACE or HAIC still require routine hydration, nutritional support, antiemetic and analgesic medication when clinically indicated, postprocedural monitoring, and mobilization guidance. Auricular acupressure may complement these measures by providing repeated, patient–participatory stimulation between scheduled nursing assessments and medication administrations. The need for an integrated protocol is particularly relevant during the early post–treatment period, when several symptoms may emerge simultaneously, change rapidly, and affect oral intake, sleep, mobilization, and willingness to continue subsequent treatment cycles. Without a standardized workflow, acupoint selection, stimulation frequency, patient instruction, safety monitoring, and documentation may vary considerably among nurses and institutions.
Auricular acupressure does not require needle insertion and allows patients to participate in symptom self–management after nursing instruction, making it potentially suitable for repeated liver arterial interventions. However, existing studies vary substantially in acupoint selection, localization methods, stimulation intensity, pressing frequency, intervention duration, adherence monitoring, and outcome assessment. Most previous studies have focused on a single symptom or a general oncology population, and few have provided a reproducible peri–interventional protocol addressing the concurrent nausea, vomiting, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and appetite loss experienced by patients undergoing TACE or HAIC. This methodological gap limits cross–study comparison, replication across institutions, and integration into routine nursing workflows. The protocol was developed through iterative refinement based on published auricular acupressure literature21,22,23,24,25, institutional peri-interventional nursing practice, and multidisciplinary discussion among hepatobiliary surgeons, pain specialists, and senior traditional Chinese medicine nurses. Before prospective clinical implementation, the workflow, acupoint selection, intervention sequence, nursing documentation, and assessment schedule were standardized, and competency-based nurse training and fidelity-monitoring procedures were incorporated to improve reproducibility across operators.