Urodynamic and clinical effects of terazosin therapy in symptomatic patients with and without bladder outlet obstruction: a stratified analysis.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical and urodynamic changes in patients with and without bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and to compare the clinical and urodynamic results of terazosin treatment between patients with and without BOO. METHODS: In a prospective study, 97 patients who completed a full screening program including urodynamic investigation with pressure-flow study analysis started treatment with terazosin. A total of 60 patients completed 6 months of treatment and were re-evaluated with International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), uroflowmetry, and urodynamic investigation with pressure-flow study analysis. Patients were stratified using the linear passive urethral resistance relation (lin-PURR) classification according to Schäfer. Patients with a lin-PURR of 3 or more were classified as patients with BOO and patients with a lin-PURR of 2 or less were classified as patients without BOO. The clinical and urodynamic changes within and between the groups with and without BOO were evaluated. RESULTS: Terazosin resulted in significant symptomatic relief (9 points on the IPSS scale; P < 0.01) and a significant improvement of free urinary flow (3.0 mL/s; P < 0.01). In patients with BOO, a statistically significant improvement of all urodynamic obstruction variables (P < 0.01) was shown. In patients without BOO, a significant improvement of free urinary flow (4.4 mL/s; P < 0.01), a statistically significantly improved bladder capacity (increase of 70 mL; P = 0.01), and no statistically significant changes in urodynamic obstruction variables (P > 0.05) were shown. Patients with a hypoactive detrusor were more prone to early dropout. When comparing the changes of symptoms (P = 0.89), quality of life (P = 0.85), and the number of patients with improvements of free uroflow of at least 30% (P = 0.15), there appeared to be no significant difference between the groups with and without BOO. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a statistically significant difference in urodynamic response to terazosin treatment between patients with and without BOO, we cannot recommend the use of pressure-flow studies in the selection of patients for terazosin treatment because the clinical results of treatment appear not to be significantly different between patients with and without BOO. It seems more useful, and certainly less expensive and less invasive, to start alpha 1-blocker therapy if, on clinical grounds, the urologist considers the patient to be a candidate for alpha 1-blocker therapy, and to continue therapy in those who respond.