Prostatic Artery Embolization Using Polyethylene Glycol Microspheres: A 1-Year Follow-up Prospective Study Including 30 Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) using polyethylene glycol (PEG) microspheres in patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective study of 30 patients who underwent PAE from August 2020 to December 2021 using PEG 400-µm microspheres was conducted. Patient evaluation data using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), and prostate volume (PV) at baseline and 3 and 12 months after PAE were obtained. RESULTS: Bilateral PAE was performed in all patients. One patient had early clinical failure (3.3%) and another presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) recurrence (3.3%) at the 12-month follow-up. Twenty-eight patients (93.3%) experienced significant and durable LUTS improvement. Mean absolute (and relative) improvement at 3 and 12 months were: IPSS, 14.6 points (-69%) for both; QoL, 3.3 points (-70%) and 3.5 points (-74%); Qmax, 6.3 mL/s (+78%) and 8.6 mL/s (+100%); PSA reduction, 1.2 ng/mL (-22%) and 1.0 ng/mL (-15%); PVR reduction, 48 mL (-56%) and 58.2 mL (-49%); PV reduction, 23.4 cm3 (-29%) and 19.6cm3 (-25%); (P < .05 for all). No major adverse events were observed. Minor adverse events included urinary tract infection (4/30, 13.3%), prostatic tissue elimination (3/30, 10%), penile punctiform ulcer (1/30, 3.3%), and urinary retention (1/30, 3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: PAE using PEG microspheres was observed to be effective with sustained LUTS improvement at the 12-month follow-up. The incidence of urinary infection and prostatic tissue elimination was higher than previously reported for other embolics.

Prostatic artery embolization using reflux-control microcatheter: prospective experience addressing feasibility.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) using a reflux control microcatheter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center investigation that included 10 patients undergoing PAE for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month efficacy endpoints were obtained for all patients and included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire and the IPSS-Quality of life (QoL) item. Complications were assessed using the Cirse classification system. RESULTS: Ten patients entered statistical analysis and presented with significant LUTS improvement 12 months after PAE, as follows: mean IPSS reduction of 86.6% (2.8 vs. 20.7, - 17.9, P < 0.001), mean QoL reduction of 79.4% (1.1 vs. 5.4, - 4.3, P < 0.001), mean prostatic volume reduction of 38.4% (69.3 cm3 vs. 112.5 cm3, - 43.2 cm3, P < 0.001), mean peak urinary flow (Qmax) increase of 199.4% (19.9 mL/s vs. 6.6 mL/s, + 13.3 mL/s, P = 0.006) and mean PSA reduction of 50.1% (3.0 ng/mL vs. 6.1 ng/mL, - 3.0 ng/mL, P < 0.001). One patient (10%) needed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) after PAE due to a ball-valve effect. One microcatheter (10%) needed to be replaced during PAE due to occlusion. Non-target embolization was not observed in the cohort. CONCLUSION: This initial experience suggests that PAE using a reflux control microcatheter is effective and safe for the treatment of LUTS attributed to BPH.

Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. RESULTS: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.

OBJETIVO: Descrever a eficácia e a segurança da embolização de proteção na embolização de artérias prostáticas e discutir sua relevância clínica. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo, observacional, de um único centro, que inclui 39 pacientes submetidos a embolização de artérias prostáticas para tratamento de sintomas do trato urinário inferior relacionados a hiperplasia benigna da próstata, de junho de 2008 a março de 2018. O acompanhamento foi realizado em 3 meses e 12 meses, incluindo International Prostate Symptom Score, escore de qualidade de vida, antígeno prostático específico, ultrassom, ressonância magnética e urofluxometria. RESULTADOS: Embolização de proteção foi realizada em 45 artérias: artérias retais médias em 19 (42,2%); artérias pudendas internas acessórias em 11 (24,4%); anastomoses com ramos da artéria pudenda interna em 10 (22,2%); artérias vesicais superiores em quatro (8,9%); e artéria obturatória em uma (2,2%). Houve um caso de embolização não alvo que provocou uma úlcera peniana, atribuída a refluxo de partículas para uma artéria não protegida. Não houve complicações relacionadas com os ramos protegidos. Os pacientes apresentaram melhora significativa em todos os resultados estudados (p < 0,05) e não relataram piora da função sexual durante o acompanhamento. CONCLUSÃO: Embolização de proteção pode ser realizada para diminuir embolização não alvo sem interferir nos resultados da embolização de artérias prostáticas. Além disso, não foi observado nenhum evento adverso diferente dos já esperados ou previamente publicados. A embolização de proteção na região pudenda é segura.

Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization / Proteção de estruturas não alvo na embolização de artérias prostáticas

Abstract Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. Results: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. Conclusion: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever a eficácia e a segurança da embolização de proteção na embolização de artérias prostáticas e discutir sua relevância clínica. Materiais e Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo, observacional, de um único centro, que inclui 39 pacientes submetidos a embolização de artérias prostáticas para tratamento de sintomas do trato urinário inferior relacionados a hiperplasia benigna da próstata, de junho de 2008 a março de 2018. O acompanhamento foi realizado em 3 meses e 12 meses, incluindo International Prostate Symptom Score, escore de qualidade de vida, antígeno prostático específico, ultrassom, ressonância magnética e urofluxometria. Resultados: Embolização de proteção foi realizada em 45 artérias: artérias retais médias em 19 (42,2%); artérias pudendas internas acessórias em 11 (24,4%); anastomoses com ramos da artéria pudenda interna em 10 (22,2%); artérias vesicais superiores em quatro (8,9%); e artéria obturatória em uma (2,2%). Houve um caso de embolização não alvo que provocou uma úlcera peniana, atribuída a refluxo de partículas para uma artéria não protegida. Não houve complicações relacionadas com os ramos protegidos. Os pacientes apresentaram melhora significativa em todos os resultados estudados (p < 0,05) e não relataram piora da função sexual durante o acompanhamento. Conclusão: Embolização de proteção pode ser realizada para diminuir embolização não alvo sem interferir nos resultados da embolização de artérias prostáticas. Além disso, não foi observado nenhum evento adverso diferente dos já esperados ou previamente publicados. A embolização de proteção na região pudenda é segura.

Prostatic artery embolization for giant prostatic hyperplasia: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety and efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with a markedly enlarged prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 18 consecutive patients (mean age, 74 years) with benign prostatic hyperplasia, all with a prostate volume ≥ 200 cm3, who were enrolled to receive PAE for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms. RESULTS: The PAE procedure was technically successful in 17 patients (94.4%). During follow-up, clinical failure (defined as an International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] ≥ 8) was observed in two (11.1%) of those 18 patients. At 3 months of follow-up, there was significant improvement over baseline in all relevant outcome measures: total IPSS (from 15.7 to 2.9); IPSS quality of life score (from 5.2 to 1.0); prostate specific antigen (from 11.4 to 1.82 ng/mL); peak urinary flow rate (from 7.45 to 18.6 mL/s); prostate volume (from 252.4 to 151.6 cm3); and post-void residual volume (from 143.7 to 28.3 mL)-p < 0.05 for all. Of the 18 patients, one (5.6%) presented detachment of prostate tissue and self-limited hematuria, which did not require specific treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with a markedly enlarged prostate, PAE proved to be safe and effective, resulting in significant improvements in clinical, imaging, and urodynamic parameters.

OBJETIVO: Descrever a segurança e eficácia da embolização das artérias prostáticas (EAP) em pacientes com próstatas muito aumentadas (≥ 200 cm3). MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Este estudo retrospectivo incluiu 18 pacientes consecutivos com hiperplasia prostática benigna portadores de próstatas ≥ 200 cm3 (idade média de 74 anos), que foram submetidos a EAP para tratar sintomas de trato urinário inferior moderados a graves. RESULTADOS: A EAP foi tecnicamente bem-sucedida em 17 pacientes (94,4%). Falha clínica (IPSS ≥ 8) foi detectada em dois pacientes durante o seguimento (11,1%). Observamos melhora significativa em todos os parâmetros relevantes aos três meses de acompanhamento: IPSS: 15,7 vs. 2,9; qualidade de vida: 5,2 vs. 1,0); PSA: 11,4 vs. 1,82 ng/mL; pico de fluxo urinário: 7,45 vs. 18,6 mL/s); volume prostático: 252,4 vs. 151,6 cm3; e volume urinário residual: 143,7 vs. 28,3 mL - p < 0,05 para todos). Um paciente (5,6%) apresentou eliminação de tecido prostático e hematúria autolimitada durante o seguimento, que não necessitou de tratamento específico. CONCLUSÃO: A EAP em pacientes com próstata muito aumentada foi segura e eficaz, com significativas melhoras clínica, urodinâmica e imaginológica.

Advanced image guidance for prostatic artery embolization - a multicenter technical note.

BACKGROUND: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is associated with patients' quality of life improvements and limited side effects compared to surgery. However, this procedure remains technically challenging due to complex vasculature, anatomical variations and small arteries, inducing long procedure times and high radiation exposure levels both to patients and medical staff. Moreover, the risk of non-target embolization can lead to relevant complications. In this context, advanced imaging can constitute a solid ally to address these challenges and deliver good clinical outcomes at acceptable radiation levels. MAIN TEXT: This technical note aims to share the consolidated experience of four institutions detailing their optimized workflow using advanced image guidance, discussing variants, and sharing their best practices to reach a consensus standardized imaging workflow for PAE procedure, as well as pre and post-operative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: This technical note puts forth a consensus optimized imaging workflow and best practices, with the hope of helping drive adoption of the procedure, deliver good clinical outcomes, and minimize radiation dose levels and contrast media injections while making PAE procedures shorter and safer.

Role of Ultrasound Elastography in Patient Selection for Prostatic Artery Embolization.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on prostate elasticity as assessed using ultrasound elastography (US-E) and to describe baseline US-E's potential role in patient selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective investigation that included 20 patients undergoing PAE to treat lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). US-E with measurement of the prostatic elastic modulus (EM) and shear wave velocity (SWV) was performed before PAE and at 1-month follow-up. Baseline, 3-month, and 1-year follow-up evaluations included prostate-specific antigen, uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) metrics. RESULTS: Seventeen patients entered statistical analysis. US-E showed a significant reduction in mean prostatic EM (34.4 kPa vs 46.3 kPa, -24.7%, P < .0001) and SWV (3.55 m/s vs 4.46 m/s, -20.0%, P < .0001) after PAE. There were moderate positive correlations between baseline EM and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.62, P = .007) and between baseline SWV and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.68, P = .002). Baseline SWV ≥ 5.59 m/s and baseline EM ≥ 50.14 kPa were associated with suboptimal IPSS and QoL outcomes after PAE with high degrees of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (69-100%). CONCLUSIONS: PAE led to a positive effect on the BPH dynamic component related to prostatic elasticity. There was a moderate positive correlation between baseline prostatic elastographic parameters and 12-month IPSS. Measurement of baseline elastographic characteristics may become useful for the evaluation and selection of patients for PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Indications, Preparation, Techniques, Imaging Evaluation, Reporting, and Complications.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous growth of the transitional zone of the prostate, which surrounds the prostatic urethra. Consequently, it can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and bladder outlet obstruction symptoms that may substantially reduce a patient's quality of life. Several treatments are available for BPH, including medications such as α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors and surgical options including transurethral resection of the prostate and prostatectomy. Recently, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option for selected men with BPH and moderate to severe LUTS. Adequate pre- and postprocedural evaluations with clinical examinations and questionnaires, laboratory tests, and urodynamic and imaging examinations (particularly US, MRI, and CT) are of key importance to achieve successful treatment. Considering that the use of PAE has been increasing in tertiary hospital facilities, radiologists and interventional radiologists should be aware of the main technical concepts of PAE and the key features to address in imaging reports in pre- and postprocedural settings. An invited commentary by Lopera is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2021.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Equipment, Procedure Steps, and Overcoming Technical Challenges.

In the last decade, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) established itself as a safe and effective treatment option for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), with reproducible results across multiple centers and endorsement by important international societies. However, PAE is also known to be a technically demanding procedure. Accompanying the prevalence of benign prostate hyperplasia, the procedure is usually performed in older patients, in whom atherosclerosis and comorbidities are common features. Also, prostatic vascular anatomy is described to be complex and variable, and pelvic structures are deeply interconnected by anastomosis. Thus, PAE demands a deep familiarization with materials and devices, intraprocedure imaging techniques, microcatetherization skills and with the pelvic vascular anatomy. Especially in the beginning of the learning curve, the procedure can be time-consuming and related to high radiation exposure for both medical team and the patient. In this article, the main points of technical concern during PAE are described and discussed, such as the equipment needed, the effect of different embolic materials, patient's preparation for the procedure, arterial access sites, identifying and catheterizing the prostatic arteries, the embolization techniques, among others. Finally, the most frequent technical challenges are presented, and the possible strategies to overcome them are exemplified and discussed.

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma during the COVID-19 Pandemic - São Paulo Clínicas Liver Cancer Group Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement.

More than 18 million people in 188 countries have been diagnosed as having coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and COVID-19 has been responsible for more than 600,000 deaths worldwide. Brazil is now the second most affected country globally. Faced with this scenario, various public health measures and changes in the daily routines of hospitals were implemented to stop the pandemic. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 as they present with two major diseases: cancer and concomitant chronic liver disease. The COVID-19 pandemic can significantly impact the management of HCC patients from diagnosis to treatment strategies. These patients need special attention and assistance at this time, especially since treatment for tumors cannot be delayed in most cases. The aim of this guideline was to standardize the management of HCC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This document was developed, on the basis of the best evidence available, by a multidisciplinary team from Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), and Instituto Central of the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP), which are members of the São Paulo Clínicas Liver Cancer Group.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 10 Years' Experience.

Background Long-term experience with prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia remains limited. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of PAE for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-center study was conducted from June 2008 to June 2018 in patients with moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia-related symptoms. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume were assessed. PAE was performed with 100-500-µm embolic microspheres. Mixed-model analysis of variance and Kaplan-Meyer method was accessed, as appropriate. Results A total of 317 consecutive men (mean age ± standard deviation, 65 years ± 8) were treated. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 96 months (mean, 27 months). Bilateral and unilateral PAE was performed in 298 (94%) and 19 (6%) men, respectively. Early clinical failure occurred in six (1.9%) and symptom recurrence in 72 (23%) men at a median follow-up of 72 months. Mean maximum improvement was as follows: IPSS, 16 points ± 7; quality-of-life score, 4 points ± 1; prostatic volume reduction, 39 cm3 ± 39 (39% ± 29); maximum urinary flow rate, 6 mL/sec ± 10 (155% ± 293); and postvoid residual volume, 70 mL ± 121 (48% ± 81) (P < .05 for all). Unilateral PAE was associated with higher recurrence (42% vs 21%; P = .04). Baseline PSA was inversely related with recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.9 per nanograms per milliliter of PSA; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8, 0.9; P < .001). Embolization with combined particle sizes (100-500 µm) did not relate to symptom recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.1 for 100-500-µm group vs 300-500-µm group and hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.5 for 100-500-µm group vs 100-300-µm group; P = .19).None of the patients presented with urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Conclusion Prostatic artery embolization was a safe and effective procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia with good long-term results for lower urinary tract symptoms. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The Brazilian Society of Hepatology (SBH) published in 2015 its first recommendations about the management of HCC. Since then, new data have emerged in the literature, prompting the governing board of SBH to sponsor a single-topic meeting in August 2018 in São Paulo. All the invited experts were asked to make a systematic review of the literature reviewing the management of HCC in subjects with cirrhosis. After the meeting, all panelists gathered together for the discussion of the topics and the elaboration of updated recommendations. The text was subsequently submitted for suggestions and approval of all members of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology through its homepage. The present manuscript is the final version of the reviewed manuscript containing the recommendations of SBH.

Improvements in Irritative Versus Obstructive Symptoms of the International Prostate Symptom Score After Prostatic Artery Embolization in 174 Patients, in a Single Center.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the improvements in irritative versus obstructive symptoms of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2010 and 2018, 186 patients underwent PAE in a single center and 174 patients were retrospectively selected. The inclusion criteria were symptoms due to BPH, refractory to pharmacological treatment and IPSS ≥ 8. The mean age of the patients was 63.7 ± 7.2 years, the mean prostate volume 89.5 ± 42.5 cm3, and the mean IPSS 19.0 ± 6.2 points. Patient data were reviewed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24 months and compared using the ANOVA mixed models and the Tukey's multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Obstructive subscores dropped more significantly than irritative subscores (p < 0.0001). The mean decrease in each IPSS item was frequency 2.4 (83%); urgency 0.8 (87%); nocturia 1.3 (49%); incomplete emptying 2.6 (83%); intermittency 2.3 (91%); weak stream 2.9 (82%); straining 1.6 (91%). The area under the curve for baseline obstructive scores was 0.7 (p = 0.006) and 0.59 (p = 0.182) for irritative scores. The most common BPH clinical manifestations include irritative and/or obstructive symptoms, the latter usually more prevalent. The IPSS drop observed after PAE suggests that it acts predominantly over obstructive symptoms (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Although a predominant improvement in obstructive symptoms may be observed after PAE, nocturia complaints may require special attention. The severity of baseline obstructive symptoms may significantly predict clinical outcomes.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma during the COVID-19 pandemic - São Paulo Clínicas liver cancer group multidisciplinary consensus statement

More than 18 million people in 188 countries have been diagnosed as having coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and COVID-19 has been responsible for more than 600,000 deaths worldwide. Brazil is now the second most affected country globally. Faced with this scenario, various public health measures and changes in the daily routines of hospitals were implemented to stop the pandemic. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 as they present with two major diseases: cancer and concomitant chronic liver disease. The COVID-19 pandemic can significantly impact the management of HCC patients from diagnosis to treatment strategies. These patients need special attention and assistance at this time, especially since treatment for tumors cannot be delayed in most cases. The aim of this guideline was to standardize the management of HCC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This document was developed, on the basis of the best evidence available, by a multidisciplinary team from Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), and Instituto Central of the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP), which are members of the São Paulo Clínicas Liver Cancer Group.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT: REPORT OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY (SBH), BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED) AND BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY (SOBRICE).

Liver and biliary tract diseases are common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive procedures are usually performed in those patients with hepatobiliary diseases for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Defining proper indications and restraints of commonly used techniques is crucial for proper patient selection, maximizing positive results and limiting complications. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Hepato-logy (SBH) in cooperation with the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular surgery (SOBRICE) and the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED) sponsored a joint single-topic meeting on invasive procedures in patients with hepatobiliary diseases. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the aforementioned meeting. It is intended to guide clinicians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and endoscopists for the proper use of invasive procedures for management of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.

Effects of Prostatic Artery Embolization on the Dynamic Component of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia as Assessed by Ultrasound Elastography: A Pilot Series.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on prostatic elasticity as assessed by Ultrasound Elastography (US-E), as well as to describe the feasibility and role of US-E as a novel tool in both pre- and post-PAE evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center investigation that included eight patients undergoing PAE for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Baseline and 3-month follow-up evaluations were performed and included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire and the IPSS-Quality of life (QoL) item. US-E with measurement of the prostatic Elastic Modulus (EM) was performed before PAE and at 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: After PAE, US-E showed a significant reduction of prostatic EM as assessed in kPa (33.14 vs. 47.24, - 29.8%, p = 0.002) and in m/s (3.75 vs. 4.63, - 19.0%, p < 0.001). Also, the transitional/peripheral zone ratio was significantly reduced by 45.36% (0.53 vs. 0.97, p < 0.05). All eight patients presented with significant LUTS improvement after PAE (p < 0.05 for IPSS, QoL, prostate volume, peak urinary flow rate and PSA). CONCLUSIONS: Findings described in this study suggest that PAE significantly reduces prostatic EM, leading to a positive effect on BPH dynamic component related to prostatic elasticity. Also, it features US-E as an additional tool for pre- and post-PAE evaluation, describing a novel indication for this technology.

A Review of Adverse Events Related to Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Bladder Outlet Obstruction Due to BPH.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive procedures have gained great importance among the treatments for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) due to their low morbidity. Prostate artery embolization has emerged as a safe and effective alternative for patients with large volume BPH, not suited for surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Low adverse events rates have been reported following prostate artery embolization and may include dysuria, urinary infection, hematuria, hematospermia, acute urinary retention and rectal bleeding. Although most complaints are reported as side effects, complications can also be superimposed. RESULTS: The prostate gland is the most common source of complaints following PAE, where the inflammatory process can create a large variety of localized symptoms. Periprostatic organs and structures such as bladder, rectum, penis, seminal vesicle, pelvis, bones and skin may be damaged by nontarget embolization, especially due to the misidentification of the normal vascular anatomy and variants or due to inadvertent embolic reflux. Radiodermatitis may also happen in case of small vessel size, atherosclerosis, the learning curve and long procedure or fluoroscopy times. DISCUSSION: Regarding safety, it is pivotal to understand the pathophysiology of adverse events following PAE and their standardized reporting. The aim of this article is to discuss adverse events, their management and to review the current literature.

Anatomical Variants in Prostate Artery Embolization: A Pictorial Essay.

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The main challenges related to this procedure are navigating arteries with atherosclerosis and anatomical variations, and the potential risk of non-target embolization to pelvic structures due to the presence of collateral shunts and reflux of microparticles. Knowledge of classical vascular anatomy and the most common variations is essential for safe embolization, good clinical practice, and optimal outcomes. The aim of this pictorial essay is to illustrate the pelvic vascular anatomy relevant to PAE in order to provide a practical guide that includes the most common anatomical variants as well as to discuss the technical details related to each.

Prostatic Tissue Elimination After Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE): A Report of Three Cases.

PURPOSE: We report three cases of spontaneous prostatic tissue elimination through the urethra while voiding following technically successful prostatic artery embolization (PAE) as a treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: All patients were embolized with 100- to 300-µm microspheres alone or in combination with 300- to 500-µm microspheres. RESULTS: During follow-up prior to eliminating the tissue fragments, the three patients all presented with intermittent periods of LUTS improvement and aggravation. After expelling the prostatic tissue between 1 and 5 months of follow-up, significant improvements in LUTS and urodynamic parameters were observed in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Urethral obstruction after PAE caused by sloughing prostate tissue is a potential complication of the procedure and should be considered in patients with recurrent LUTS in order to avoid inappropriate management.

Recurrence of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Following Prostate Artery Embolization for Benign Hyperplasia: Single Center Experience Comparing Two Techniques.

PURPOSE: To compare recurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) recurrence at 12 months following original prostate artery embolization (oPAE) or "proximal embolization first, then embolize distal" (PErFecTED) PAE for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 105 consecutive patients older than 45 years, with prostate size greater than 30 cm3, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥ 8, quality of life (QoL) index ≥ 3, and refractory status or intolerance of medical management were prospectively enrolled between June 2008 and August 2013. The study was IRB-approved, and all patients provided informed consent. Patients underwent oPAE or PErFecTED PAE and were followed for at least 12 months. Technical success was defined as bilateral embolization and clinical success (non-recurrence) was defined as removal of the Foley catheter in patients with urinary retention, IPSS < 8 and QoL index < 3 at 12 months of follow-up. Nonparametric statistics were used to compare the study groups due to the size of the study population and distributions of clinical data. RESULTS: 97 patients had 12-month data and were categorized as oPAE without recurrence (n = 46), oPAE with recurrence (n  = 13), PErFecTED without recurrence (n  = 36), or PErFecTED with recurrence (n  = 2). Recurrence was significantly more common in oPAE patients (χ 2, p = 0.026). Unilateral embolization was significantly associated with recurrence among patients who underwent oPAE (χ 2, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Both oPAE and PErFecTED PAE are safe and effective methods for treatment of LUTS, but PErFecTED PAE is associated with a significantly lower rate of symptom recurrence.