Multicenter Quantification of Radiation Exposure and Associated Risks for Prostatic Artery Embolization in 1476 Patients.

Background Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe, minimally invasive angiographic procedure that effectively treats benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, PAE-related patient radiation exposure and associated risks are not completely understood. Purpose To quantify radiation dose and assess radiation-related adverse events in patients who underwent PAE at multiple centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing PAE for any indication performed by experienced operators at 10 high-volume international centers from January 2014 to May 2021. Patient characteristics, procedural and radiation dose data, and radiation-related adverse events were collected. Procedural radiation effective doses were calculated by multiplying kerma-area product values by an established conversion factor for abdominopelvic fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Relationships between cumulative air kerma (CAK) or effective dose and patient body mass index (BMI), fluoroscopy time, or radiation field area were assessed with linear regression. Differences in radiation dose stemming from radiopaque prostheses or fluoroscopy unit type were assessed using two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results A total of 1476 patients (mean age, 69.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included, of whom 1345 (91.1%) and 131 (8.9%) underwent the procedure with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units, respectively. Median procedure effective dose was 17.8 mSv for fixed interventional units and 12.3 mSv for mobile units. CAK and effective dose both correlated positively with BMI (R2 = 0.15 and 0.17; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (R2 = 0.16 and 0.08; P < .001). No radiation-related 90-day adverse events were reported. Patients with radiopaque implants versus those without implants had higher median CAK (1452 mGy [range, 900-2685 mGy] vs 1177 mGy [range, 700-1959 mGy], respectively; P = .01). Median effective dose was lower for mobile than for fixed interventional systems (12.3 mSv [range, 8.5-22.0 mSv] vs 20.4 mSv [range, 13.8-30.6 mSv], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Patients who underwent PAE performed with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units were exposed to a median effective radiation dose of 17.8 mSv or 12.3 mSv, respectively. No radiation-related adverse events at 90 days were reported. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access.

PURPOSE: To compare prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA-PAE) versus transfemoral access (TFA-PAE) to assist access selection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Procedural outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in 998 patients who underwent PAE at a single center from April 2014 to August 2022; 821 (82%) underwent TRA-PAE (Group R) and 177 (18%) underwent TFA-PAE (Group F). Mean age and prostate size of Groups R and F were 69.2 years (SD ± 8.4) and 117.4 g (SD ± 63.1) and 75.2 years (SD ± 12.1) and 127.2 g (SD ± 83.6), respectively (P < .01 and P = .16; postpropensity matching: P = .38 and P = .35, respectively). Indications for PAE included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute or chronic urinary retention, and hematuria. Procedural and patient-specific metrics were reviewed. Technical success was defined as bilateral PAE. Adverse events were recorded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse events classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 798 (97.2%) patients in Group R and 165 (93.2%) patients in Group F. Mean procedural time, single- and continuous-rotation fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were significantly lower in Group R than in Group F (P < .001). Moreover, 6 (0.7%) patients in Group R and 9 (5.5%) patients in Group F had access site ecchymoses, whereas 5 (0.6%) patients in Group R and 6 (3.6%) in Group F had access site hematomas. Two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) after TRA-PAE and recovered without intervention. Two occult radial artery occlusions were noted, but no patient experienced hand ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In a large single interventional radiologist cohort, TRA-PAE demonstrated similar technical success to that of TFA-PAE with lower access site hemorrhagic complications and radiation requirements; however, TIA and occult radial artery occlusions remain a concern.

Complications associated with minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database review.

PURPOSE: MAUDE database houses medical device reports of suspected device-related complications received by Food and Drug Administration. In the present study we aim to evaluate the MAUDE database for reported complications of MIST procedures. METHODS: The database was queried using keywords: rezum, urolift, prostate embolization (PAE), transurethral needle ablation (TUNA), transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT), prostate stent and Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device (iTIND) on 10/1/22 to extract information regarding device problems and procedure-related complications. Gupta classification system was used to stratify complications. Statistical analysis was performed to compare frequency of complications among MIST procedures. RESULTS: We found a total of 692 reports (Rezum-358, urolift-226, PAE-53, TUNA-31, TUMT-19, prostatic stent-4, and iTIND-1). Most complications related to device or users were minor (level 1 and 2) and there was no significant difference among various MIST procedures. The screen/system error was responsible for 93% and 83% aborted cases in Rezum and TUNA, respectively, and PAE showed 40% of device component detachment/fracture. Overall Urolift and TUMT were associated with statistically significant higher incidence of major (level 3 and 4) complications (23% and 21%, respectively) as compared with Rezum (7%). Most major complications needing hospitalization after Urolift included hematoma and hematuria with clots and those after Rezum included urinary tract infection and sepsis. Thirteen deaths were reported, mostly due to cardiovascular events, which were classified as not associated with the proposed treatment. CONCLUSION: MIST for BPH can occasionally cause significant morbidity. Our data should assist urologists and patients in shared decision-making process.

Effect of Prostate Artery Embolization on Erectile Function - A Single Center Experience of 167 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is an emerging therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). AIM: This retrospective study was conducted to assess the effect of prostate artery embolization (PAE) on erectile function in a cohort of patients with LUTS attributable to BPH at 3-months after the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 167 patients who underwent PAE. Data collected included Sexual Health Inventory in Men (SHIM) scores at 3, 6, and 12 months post-PAE, in conjunction with the International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL) scores, and prostate volumes. Primary outcome was erectile function as assessed by SHIM scores at 3 months after PAE. An analysis was performed to identify patients with a ±5-point SHIM change to group them according to this minimum clinically significant difference in erectile function. Adverse events were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. OUTCOMES: At 3 months following PAE, median IPSS decreased by 16.0 [IQR, 9.0-22.0] points, median QOL decreased by 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-5.0] points, and median prostate volume decreased by 33 g [IQR, 14-55]. RESULTS: Median SHIM score was 17.0 [IQR, 12.0-22.0] at baseline, 18.0 [IQR, 14.0-23.0] at 3 months [P = .031], 19.0 [IQR, 14.5-21.5] at 6 months [P = .106] and 20 [IQR, 16.0-24.0] at 12 months [P = .010] following PAE. In patients with no erectile dysfunction (ED) at baseline, 21% (n = 9) reported some degree of decline in erectile function post-PAE. However, 38% (n = 40) of patients who presented with mild-to-moderate ED reported improvement in their erectile function 3 months following PAE. Overall, the changes in baseline SHIM score were relatively small; 82% (n = 137) of patients did not have more than 5 points of change in their SHIM scores at 3 months following PAE. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest PAE has no adverse impact on erectile function for most patients. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The study was performed at a single center with 1 operator's experience, and is retrospective with no control group. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that prostate artery embolization has no adverse effect on erectile function in the majority of patients with LUTS attributable to BPH at 3 months after the procedure. Bhatia S, Acharya V, Jalaeian H, et al., Effect of Prostate Artery Embolization on Erectile Function - A Single Center Experience of 167 Patients. J Sex Med 2022;19:594-602.

Safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of prostate as salvage procedure for persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to bladder outlet obstruction after prior prostate artery embolization: a match analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior prostate artery embolization (PAE). We also evaluated histopathological changes in prostate after PAE. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent HoLEP after prior PAE were matched according to age, weight of resected prostate tissue, and anticoagulation status in 1:2 ratio with patients who underwent HoLEP without prior PAE by a researcher who was blinded to patient's outcome at the time of matching. Histopathological examination of prostate tissue was performed to look for changes related to prior PAE. Patient's demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: The median interval between PAE and HoLEP was 25 months [IQR 14.5-37.5]. Patients demographic were comparable in both groups. Intra-operatively plane of enucleation were well-maintained in spite of prior PAE. The differences in duration of surgery, enucleation efficiency, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, and complications were statistically insignificant. Incidental prostate cancer was identified in 10% specimens from both groups. Post-PAE prostate specimens demonstrated evidence of remote-healed infarction represented by dense hyalinized paucicellur connective tissue with surrounding squamous metaplasia. There were no statistically significant differences in AUA symptom scores, maximum urine flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, and PSA at 3- and 6-month follow-up between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Plane of enucleation is well-maintained after prior PAE. Salvage HoLEP is safe and effective after previous PAE and provide outcome comparable with HoLEP as a primary procedure.

Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms from Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Men with Concurrent Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the setting of localized prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, institutional review board-approved study from December 2016 to June 2020 of 21 patients (median age, 72; range, 63-83 years) with moderate LUTS and localized PCa. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) improvement. Seventeen patients were scheduled to receive definitive radiotherapy (RT) after PAE; 13 patients completed RT. Short-term imaging signs of oncologic progression were evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks defined by at least one of the following on magnetic resonance imaging: increased Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of index lesion(s) to at least 4, new extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle involvement, or pelvic lymphadenopathy. Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analysis. RESULTS: IPSS improved by a median of 12 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 14 (n = 14, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. QoL improved by a median of 2 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 3 (n = 3, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks. Prostate volume decreased by a median of 24% (n = 19, P < .0001) and 36% (n = 12, P = .015) at 6 and 12 weeks. No patients demonstrated disease progression at 6 (n = 16) or 12 (n = 8) weeks by imaging. No patients experienced increased prostate-specific antigen after RT, grade ≥3 adverse events, or greater genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: PAE is effective and safe for the treatment of men with LUTS from benign prostatic hyperplasia in the setting of concomitant, localized, non-obstructive PCa.

Pelvic Trauma: factors predicting arterial hemorrhage and the role of Angiography and preperitoneal pelvic packing.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the factors predicting arterial extravasation in pelvic trauma and (2) to assess the efficacy of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) in controlling arterial hemorrhage. METHODS: Institutional review board approved the retrospective study of 139 consecutive pelvic trauma patients who underwent angiographic intervention with or without prior PPP between January 2011 and December 2016. Patient demographics and presenting characteristics were recorded. Both groups of patients were combined for analysis of predictors for arterial extravasation using univariate logistic regression followed by multivariate logistic regression. Significance level was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Forty-nine out of 139 patients had PPP prior to pelvic angiogram. Embolization was performed in 85 (61.2%) patients and the technical and clinical success rate was 100%. Sixty-nine (49.7%) patients had unstable Young-Burgess (Y&B) type fractures, of which 58% had arterial hemorrhage compared with 38.6% of those with stable Y&B fractures (p = 0.02). Of the patients who had PPP prior to angiogram, 28(57.1%) continued to have arterial extravasation on subsequent angiography. Unstable Y&B type fractures are independent predictors of arterial hemorrhage (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 4.7, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Unstable Y&B type pelvic fractures are predictors of arterial extravasation. PPP alone is not effective for arterial hemorrhage control in pelvic trauma. Angiographic intervention remains a minimally invasive and definitive treatment of arterial hemorrhage from pelvic trauma. KEY POINTS: • Unstable Young-Burgess pelvic fractures are predictors of arterial hemorrhage in pelvic trauma. • Pelvic angiography and embolization should precede PPP wherever feasible.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Using 100-300-µm Trisacryl Gelatin Microspheres to Treat Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributable to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single-Center Outcomes Analysis with Medium-Term Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To report medium-term outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) using 100-300-µm trisacryl gelatin microspheres to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how cone-beam computed tomography-measured prostate gland volume (PGV), median lobe enlargement (MLE), age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) affect these results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four consecutive patients who underwent PAE from April 2014 through August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients had International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >12, Quality of Life (QoL) score >2, prostate gland volume (PGV) >40 mL, age older than 45 years, and medical therapy failure. Twelve patients were excluded for bladder pathology or prostate cancer. Patients (n = 62, age = 71.8 ± 9.3 years, CCI = 3.5 ± 1.7, PGV = 174 ± 110 mL) had pre-procedure IPSS = 22.4 ± 5.6, QoL score = 4.4 ± 0.9, and post-void residual (PVR) = 172 ± 144 mL. Post-procedure values were compared to baseline at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Associations between outcomes and PGV, MLE, age, and CCI were evaluated. Adverse event recording used Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: One month after PAE (n = 37), IPSS improved to 7.6 ± 5.2 (P < .0001) and QoL score improved to 1.7 ± 1.4 (P < .0001). At 3 months (n = 32), improvements continued, with IPSS = 6.4 ± 5.1 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 1.2 (P < .0001), PVR = 53 ± 41 mL (P < .001), and PGV = 73 ± 38 mL (P < .0001). Results were sustained at 6 months (n = 35): IPSS = 6.4 ± 4.1 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 1.2 (P < .0001), PVR = 68 ± 80 mL (P < .0001), PGV = 60 ± 19 mL (P < .001). At 12 months, patients (n = 26) had IPSS = 7.3 ± 5.5 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 0.8 (P <.0001), PVR = 89 ± 117 mL (P < .0001), PGV = 60 ± 48 mL (P < .01). At 24 months, patients (n = 8) had IPSS = 8.0 ± 5.4 (P < .0001), QoL score = 0.7 ± 0.5 (P < .0001), PVR = 91 ± 99mL (P = 0.17), and PGV = 30 ± 5mL (P = .11). Improvements were independent of PGV, MLE, age, and CCI. Two grade II urinary infections occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PAE with 100-300-µm microspheres produced sustained substantial improvements in LUTS, PGV, and PVR, which were independent of baseline PGV, MLE, age, or CCI.

Development of Research Agenda in Prostate Artery Embolization: Summary of Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Panel.

PURPOSE: To summarize the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation's Research Consensus Panel development of a research agenda on prostate artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PAE for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms has been shown to be safe and effective in decreasing symptoms and prostate size. Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PAE in the United States has prevented inclusion in American Urologic Association guideline recommendations for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recognizing the need for well-designed trials, the SIR Foundation funded a Research Consensus Panel to prioritize a research agenda. The panel included interventional radiologists, urologists, SIR Foundation leadership, and industry representatives. The goal of the meeting was to discuss weaknesses with current data and study design for development of US trials to report long-term outcomes data. RESULTS: Final consensus on a research design could not be made because the group was split on 3 research designs: (i) RCT of PAE versus sham with crossover of the sham group. (ii) RCT of PAE versus simple prostatectomy. (iii) RCT of PAE versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate/thulium laser enucleation of the prostate. The panel recommended a nonindustry-funded registry to obtain real-world data. CONCLUSIONS: Level 1 data are required to be included in the American Urologic Association guidelines for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Because of concerns with all 3 study designs, the panel did not reach a consensus. Further meetings are planned with the panel to select among these research designs.

Prostate Artery Embolization in Patients with Prostate Volumes of 80 mL or More: A Single-Institution Retrospective Experience of 93 Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia for prostates ≥ 80 mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 93 patients with prostate volumes (PVs) ≥ 80 mL treated with PAE from April 2014 through October 2017. Mean patient age was 68.5 years (range 52-88) and mean age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index was 3.2 (range 1-8). Exclusion criteria included history of biopsy-proven prostate cancer or catheter dependency. Clinical and urodynamic outcomes were reviewed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Mean PV decreased significantly from 141.7 mL to 98.1 mL at 3 months (P < .01) and 82.2 mL at 12 months (P < .01). Significant improvements were seen in 3- and 12-month mean International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) (22.3 vs 7.1 and 7.3, respectively; P < .01 for both), quality of life (QOL) (4.4 vs 1.2 and 1.3; P < .01 for both), and postvoid residual volume (196.7mL vs 92.1 and 61.2 mL; P < .01 and P < .01, respectively). Significant improvement was also seen in 3-month mean maximum urinary flow: 7.7 mL/s vs 12.8 mL/s (P < .01). One grade II complication of stroke occurred; all other complications were self-limited and grade I. CONCLUSIONS: PAE achieved a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptom burden and secondary outcome measures in patients with PVs ≥ 80 mL. PAE may be an alternate treatment for patients for whom conventional surgical options are limited or associated with significant morbidity.

Efficacy of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Catheter-Dependent Patients with Large Prostate Sizes and High Comorbidity Scores.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) in urinary catheter-dependent patients with large prostate volumes and high comorbidity scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center review was conducted of 30 patients with urinary retention at time of PAE from November 2014 through February 2017. Mean (range) age was 73.1 years (48-94 y), age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index was 4.5 (0-10), duration of urinary retention was 63.4 days (2-224 d), International Prostate Symptom Score quality-of-life (IPSS-QOL) was 5.3 (3-6), and prostate volume was 167.3 cm3 (55-557 cm3). These parameters were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months after PAE. Trials of voiding were performed approximately 2 weeks after PAE and, if failed, every 2 weeks thereafter. Adverse events were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: At a mean (range) of 18.2 days (1-72 d), 26 (86.7%) patients were no longer reliant on catheters. Follow-up was obtained in all patients eligible at 3 and 6 months and 17 of 20 (85.0%) patients eligible at 1 year. Mean (range) IPSS-QOL improved significantly to 1.2 (0-5), 0.7 (0-4), and 0.6 (0-4) at 3, 6, and 12 months (all P < .001). Mean (range) prostate volume decreased significantly to 115.9 cm3 (27-248 cm3) at 3 months (P < .001). Two patients experienced grade II urosepsis complications, which were successfully treated with intravenous antibiotics. All other complications were self-limited grade I complications. CONCLUSIONS: PAE represents a safe and effective option for management of patients with urinary retention, especially patients with large prostates who are not ideal surgical candidates.

Role of Urodynamic Studies in Management of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A Guide for Interventional Radiologists.

Urodynamic testing is the most accurate representation of bladder outlet obstruction physiology. As prostate artery embolization becomes an increasingly common therapy for benign prostatic obstruction, knowledge of urodynamic assessment and reports can assist the interventional radiologist in selecting appropriate patients. This review summarizes the role of urodynamic studies in the management of benign prostatic obstruction, including patient selection, interpretation of urodynamic studies, and their potential to predict patient outcomes.

Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access: Technical Results.

PURPOSE: To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.

Role of Coil Embolization during Prostatic Artery Embolization: Incidence, Indications, and Safety Profile☆.

PURPOSE: To determine if coil embolization is a safe adjunctive measure to prevent nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PAE with coil embolization (cPAE) or without coil embolization (nPAE) between January 2014 and June 2016 was conducted. Adverse events, identified in accordance with SIR guidelines, and procedural variables were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Of 122 patients, 32 (26.2%) underwent coil embolization in 39 arteries, with coils placed to prevent nontarget embolization (n = 36), treat prostatic artery extravasation (n = 2), and occlude an intraprostatic arteriovenous fistula (n = 1). Compared with nPAE, cPAE had a nonsignificant increase in dose area product (64,516 µGy·m2 vs 52,100 µGy·m2, P = .053) but significantly longer procedure (160.1 min vs 137.1 min, P = .022) and fluoroscopy (62.9 min vs 46.1 min, P = .023) times. One major complication (urosepsis) occurred in each group (cPAE, 1/32 [3.1%]; nPAE, 1/80 [1.3%]). Both cases resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. A minor ischemic complication (1/32 [3.1%]) occurred in a patient with coil embolization, which manifested as white discoloration of the glans penis and resolved with topical therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in major and minor complications between cohorts at 1-month and 3-month follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although coil embolization leads to increases in procedure and fluoroscopy times, it is a safe adjunctive technique to occlude communications between the prostatic artery and pelvic vasculature to potentially prevent nontarget embolization.

Role of prostate artery embolization in the management of refractory haematuria of prostatic origin.

Prostatic haematuria is among the most common genitourinary complaints of emergency room visits, distressing and troublesome to men and a challenging clinical problem to the treating physician. The most common aetiologies of prostatic haematuria include benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer. Prostatic haematuria usually resolves with conservative and medical methods; failure of these interventions results in refractory haematuria of prostatic origin (RHPO), a potentially life-threatening scenario. Several different treatments have been described, with varying degrees of success. Patients with RHPO are often elderly and unfit for radical surgery. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has evolved as a safe and effective technique in the management of RHPO. Use of a superselective approach optimizes clinical success while minimizing complications. This minimally invasive approach improves patients with haemodynamic instability, serves as a bridge to elective surgery, and is a highly effective treatment for RHPO. It may obviate the need for more invasive and morbid surgical therapies. The aim of the present review was to describe the current management of RHPO and the technique of PAE and to review its efficacy and associated morbidity.

Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization in Chemotherapy-Induced Thrombocytopenia: A Retrospective Analysis of 13 Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine if proximal splenic artery embolization (PSAE) provides a safe and effective alternative to alleviate chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), allowing patients with cancer to resume chemotherapy regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients (9 men, 4 women; mean age, 63 y) with underlying malignancy (pancreatic adenocarcinoma, n = 6; cholangiocarcinoma, n = 5; other, n = 2) complicated by CIT underwent PSAE. Mean platelet counts were calculated before the initiation of chemotherapy, at the nadir that resulted in discontinuation of chemotherapy before the PSAE procedure, at peak values after the procedure, and at a mean follow-up of 9.2 months. The time to reinitiation of chemotherapy after PSAE was calculated. RESULTS: Baseline platelet count before initiation of chemotherapy was 162 × 10(9)/L (range, 90-272 × 10(9)/L). The platelet count nadir resulting in cessation of chemotherapy was 45 × 10(9)/L (range, 23-67 × 10(9)/L), and the pre-PSAE platelet count was 88 × 10(9)/L (range, 49-131 × 10(9)/L). The post-PSAE peak platelet count improved significantly (to 209 × 10(9)/L; range, 83-363 × 10(9)/L) compared with the nadir counts and the pre-PSAE counts (P < .01) at a mean short-term follow-up of 35 days (range, 7-91 d). The counts at follow-up to 9.2 months (range, 3-15 mo) were 152 × 10(9)/L (range, 91-241 × 10(9)/L). All patients became eligible to resume chemotherapy. The time to initiation of chemotherapy after PSAE averaged 22 days (range, 4-58 d) in 12 patients; one patient declined chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal splenic artery embolization appears to be safe and effective in alleviating CIT, allowing resumption of systemic chemotherapy. Further studies may help guide patient selection by identifying characteristics that allow a sustained improvement in thrombocytopenia.