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.

Prognostic Predictors of Mortality in Male Breast Cancer: Outcomes in an Urban Population.

INTRODUCTION: Male breast cancer (MBC) accounts for 0.5% to 1% of all breast cancers diagnosed annually. The purpose of this study is to evaluate prognostic factors in MBC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with MBC between 2010 and 2021. Demographics, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, recurrence, and mortality were collected. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine prognostic factors. A Kaplan-Meier curve was used to plot survival probabilities. RESULTS: A total of 47 male patients were identified. The mean age at presentation was 64.1 y. Twenty eight (59.6%) patients were African American and 14 patients (29.8%) were Caucasian. Most patients had invasive ductal carcinoma (89.4%) and presented with T1 or T2 tumors (40.4% and 38.3%, respectively). Three patients (6.4%) had a recurrence and eight patients (17%) died. Using mortality as an end point, age (≥ 76.1 y) indicated a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.13 (P = 0.004), diabetes mellitus (HR = 5.45, P = 0.023), atrial fibrillation (HR = 8.0, P = 0.009), end-stage renal disease (HR 6.47, P = 0.023), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3 (HR = 7.92, P = 0.024), poorly differentiated grade (HR = 7.21, P = 0.033), and metastatic disease (HR = 30.94, P = 0.015) had an increased risk of mortality. Overall survival at 3 y was 79.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, end-stage renal disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 3, poorly differentiated tumors, and metastatic disease are unfavorable prognostic factors in MBC. Compared to female breast cancer, MBC showed poorer overall survival.

One-year outcomes after prostate artery embolization versus laser enucleation: A network meta-analysis.

Background: Although holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size-independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post-operative and short-term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA-N-guidelines. Post-operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared. Results: Qualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: -2.21: 95%CI: (-10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: -0.22:95%CI: (-1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (-59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (-1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (-1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (-32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (-2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP-OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)]. Conclusion: HoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long-term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Technical Pearls.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a condition that primarily affects men between the fourth and seventh decades of life, occurring due to enlargement of the prostate which subsequently causes compression of the prostatic urethra causing chronic obstruction of the urinary outflow tract. BPH can cause significant quality-of-life issues such as urinary hesitancy, intermittency, decreased urinary stream, a sensation of incomplete emptying, dysuria, urinary retention, hematuria, and nocturia. Several medical and surgical treatment modalities are available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and other BPH-related sequela; however, increasingly prostate artery embolization is being utilized in this patient population. Technical demands for this procedure in this population can be significant. This article describes the optimal techniques, tricks, and advanced imaging techniques that can be used to achieve desired technical outcomes.

Reduction in tumor grade and Ki-67 in postmenopausal patient with node-positive invasive ductal carcinoma following combination hormone replacement therapy cessation: a case report.

Background: While praised for its benefits in treating symptoms related to menopausal changes, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been associated with an increased risk for hormone-dependent cancer development, particularly endometrial and breast. Few studies have elucidated the relationship between HRT cessation and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer proliferation. We report herein, to the best of our knowledge, the first case of 28.6% relative reduction in proliferation index marker Ki-67 in node-positive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer following HRT cessation. Case Description: We report an unusual case of a 64-year-old female patient with longstanding HRT for fifteen years who underwent immediate discontinuation after diagnosis of poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma. We observed a reduction in tumor grade from poorly differentiated at time of biopsy to moderately differentiated at time of surgery following cessation of HRT, as well as a reduction in the tumor proliferation index (Ki-67) from 70% to 50%. The patient has remained recurrence-free at the one-year mark postoperatively with continued follow-up. Conclusions: This case highlights potential clinical benefits associated with HRT discontinuation in the postmenopausal population with preexisting hormone-dependent cancers with high proliferation index, as well as the usefulness of Ki-67 in measuring response to aromatase inhibition in this subpopulation of patients. Keywords: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT); breast cancer; tumor grade; Ki-67; case report.

Outcomes Following Shock Aortic Valve Replacement: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients in shock. BACKGROUND: There are minimal data on the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients in shock that undergo TAVR and no data comparing these outcomes to similar patients undergoing SAVR. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients having Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-defined urgent or emergent AVR for aortic stenosis with clinical signs and symptoms of shock. Inclusion criteria were based on the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock consensus statement and included: the need for inotropic or vasopressor agents, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy or newly initiated hemodialysis, and/or utilization of mechanical hemodynamic support. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (17 TAVR, 20 SAVR). TAVR patients had a higher STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) score of 22.3% compared to 11.8% for SAVR patients (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in baseline echocardiographic results. TAVR procedures required less procedure room time (185.9 min TAVR, 348.5 min SAVR, p < 0.001) and fewer intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions (0.2 units TAVR, 3.4 units SAVR, p < 0.001). TAVR patients also had lower rates of prolonged postoperative ventilation compared to SAVR patients (38.5% TAVR, 75.0% SAVR, p = 0.047). TAVR and SAVR had similar rates of mortality at discharge (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), 30-days (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), and 1-year (8 TAVR, 5 SAVR, p = 0.149). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk TAVR group, patients in shock undergoing either TAVR or SAVR have similar 30-day mortality. At one year, SAVR patients have a numerically better, though not statistically significant, survival. These findings support the use of TAVR for patients in shock with aortic stenosis.

Repeat Pulmonary Valve Replacement: Similar Intermediate-Term Outcomes With Surgical and Transcatheter Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year echocardiographic findings and clinical outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve-in-valve replacement (TPVR) and repeat surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR). BACKGROUND: In patients with adult congenital heart disease and previous pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) who require redo PVR, it is unclear whether TPVR or repeat SPVR is the preferred strategy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 66 patients (TPVR, n = 36; SPVR, n = 30) with bioprosthetic pulmonary valves (PVs) who underwent either TPVR or repeat SPVR at Emory Healthcare from January 2007 to August 2017. RESULTS: The TPVR cohort had fewer men and more patients with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV. There was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or post-procedural PV reintervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Post-procedural echocardiographic findings showed no difference in mean PV gradients between the TPVR and SPVR groups at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. In the TPVR cohort, there was less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days (2.9% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.01), despite higher baseline NYHA functional class in the SPVR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bioprosthetic PV dysfunction who underwent either TPVR or SPVR, there was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or repeat PV intervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Additionally, TPVR and SPVR had similar intermediate-term PV longevity, with no difference in PV gradients or PVR. The TPVR cohort also had less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days despite a higher baseline NYHA functional classification. These intermediate-term results suggest that TPVR may be an attractive alternative to SPVR in patients with previous bioprosthetic surgical PVs.