Prostate artery Embolisation Assessment of Safety and feasibilitY (P-EASY): a potential alternative to long-term medical therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety, short-term efficacy and early functional results of prostate artery embolisation (PAE), an emerging minimally invasive treatment for symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 51 men with BPH (prostate size >40 mL) causing moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms, who had either failed or ceased medical therapy and had declined or were considered unsuitable for surgical intervention, were recruited to this study. All men underwent baseline clinical assessment, PAE, and 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoints of this study were safety and feasibility. Safety was measured by the incidence of post-PAE adverse events and feasibility was defined by technical success. Secondary endpoints were changes in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) score at 3 months after PAE. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events and all procedures were technically successful. For non-catheterised patients, improvement in IPSS and QoL was reported in 95.1% of cases (P < 0.001). The mean reductions in IPSS and QoL were 18.8 points (80.7%) (P < 0.001) and 3.8 points (80.6%) (P < 0.001), respectively. Of the 30 non-indwelling-catheter-dependent men on medical therapy, 23 men were able to completely cease all medications, with all but one of the remaining men reporting significant improvements in IPSS and QoL score. CONCLUSION: PAE is a technically feasible and safe procedure, with excellent short-term efficacy. High rates of patient satisfaction were achieved in this study, along with significant reductions in prostate symptoms and improvements in QoL. PAE may be an alternative to long-term use of medical therapy for symptoms due to BPH.

Prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic obstruction: assessment of safety and efficacy.

PURPOSE: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has seen a recent increase in interest as a treatment for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). The appeal of this intervention lies in reported reduction in morbidity and its minimally invasive nature. The purpose of this review is to assess the safety and efficacy of PAE as a new treatment in BPO and explore risks surrounding its performance. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed. Medical databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, limited to English, peer-reviewed articles. Search terms included prostatic artery embolization, lower urinary tracts symptoms, minimally invasive therapies, interventional radiology prostate, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers for content on development, methods, outcomes, and complications of PAE. RESULTS: Suitability of patients to undergo PAE depends on review of patient history, pre-procedure visualisation of appropriate vascular anatomy and clinical parameters. Despite this selection of candidates favourable for procedural success, PAE is not without risk of complications, some of which can significantly affect patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial findings show promise regarding safety and efficacy of PAE in improving symptom and quality-of-life scores, further investigation is required to establish durability of effect and the appropriate use of this experimental modality. There is currently limited robust evidence for the beneficial outcomes of PAE. Long-term follow-up studies will add to the evidence base to help further assess the feasibility of this procedure as an alternative to TURP.

Correlation of the International Prostate Symptom Score bother question with the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index in a clinical practice setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) bother question (BQ) and a validated disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) Impact Index (BPH-II), using the BPH Registry and Patient Survey database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The BPH Registry and Patient Survey is a multicentre, longitudinal, observational database of management practices and patient outcomes in a population of patients with BPH in the USA, managed with watchful waiting or pharmacotherapy. Men enrolled in the BPH Registry who completed the IPSS BQ and the four-item BPH-II at enrolment were identified. The association between the IPSS BQ score and the BPH Impact Index was assessed using Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: At baseline (enrolment visit), 6439 men (mean age 66 years) completed the IPSS BQ and the BPH-II. The mean (sd) score of the IPSS BQ was 2.5 (1.4) and of the BPH-II was 2.8 (2.8). Based on responses to the BPH-II, at least half the men reported that their urinary symptoms were associated with physical discomfort, worry about their health, and bothersomeness. The IPSS BQ score was significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with the BPH-II (r = 0.68) and each of its four questions (physical discomfort, r = 0.52; worry about health, r = 0.53; bothersomeness of trouble with urination, r = 0.67; and time kept from usual activities, r = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The IPSS BQ score has a strong and positive correlation with the BPH-II among men enrolled in the BPH Registry. The IPSS BQ is a convenient tool for assessing disease-specific quality of life when determining treatment strategies and evaluating treatment outcomes in men with BPH.