Impact of 5-Alpha-Reductase Inhibitors Use at the Time of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare the 12-month post-prostatic artery embolization (PAE) clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not taking 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) at the time of PAE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent PAE from 2010 to 2017 due to lower urinary tract symptoms, secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). One hundred fifty-five patients were included and divided in 2 groups; these groups did not present statistically significant differences in their baseline characteristics-those taking 5ARIs (Y-5ARIs, n = 40) and those not taking 5ARIs (N-5ARIs, n = 115). International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the sub-item Quality of Life (QoL), and the incidence of clinical failure were used as primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included mean prostate volume reduction and mean peak flow rate (Qmax) improvement. Clinical failure or recurrence was defined as absence of symptomatic improvement (IPSS ≥ 8 or QoL ≥ 3) or the need for invasive BPH treatment (PAE or transurethral resection of the prostate) during the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: After 12-month follow-up, IPSS, QoL, and prostatic volume were significantly lower compared to baseline in both groups, and Qmax showed a significant increase. No statistically significant differences were observed in outcomes between N-5ARIs and Y-5ARIs, and the clinical failure rate for both groups was approximately 20%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 5ARIs did not show a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes of PAE, in either subjective (IPSS, QoL, and clinical failure) or objective (prostatic volume and Qmax) parameters.

Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Versus Original and PErFecTED Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): Preliminary Results of a Single Center, Prospective, Urodynamic-Controlled Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and urodynamic results of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to original and PErFecTED prostate artery embolization (PAE) methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: We prospectively randomized 30 patients to receive TURP or original PAE (oPAE) and compared them to a cohort of patients treated by PErFecTED PAE, with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Patients were assessed for urodynamic parameters, prostate volume, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: All groups were comparable for all pre-treatment parameters except bladder contractility and peak urine flow rate (Q max), both of which were significantly better in the TURP group, and IIEF score, which was significantly higher among PErFecTED PAE patients than TURP patients. All groups experienced significant improvement in IPSS, QoL, prostate volume, and Q max. TURP and PErFecTED PAE both resulted in significantly lower IPSS than oPAE but were not significantly different from one another. TURP resulted in significantly higher Q max and significantly smaller prostate volume than either original or PErFecTED PAE but required spinal anesthesia and hospitalization. Two patients in the oPAE group with hypocontractile bladders experienced recurrence of symptoms and were treated with TURP. In the TURP group, urinary incontinence occurred in 4/15 patients (26.7 %), rupture of the prostatic capsule in 1/15 (6.7 %), retrograde ejaculation in all patients (100 %), and one patient was readmitted for temporary bladder irrigation due to hematuria. CONCLUSIONS: TURP and PAE are both safe and effective treatments. TURP and PErFecTED PAE yield similar symptom improvement, but TURP is associated with both better urodynamic results and more adverse events.

Prostatic artery embolization for enlarged prostates due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. How I do it.

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as an alternative to surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Patient selection and refined technique are essential for good results. Urodynamic evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging are very important and technical limitations are related to elderly patients with tortuous and atherosclerotic vessels, anatomical variations, difficulty visualizing and catheterizing small diameter arteries feeding the prostate, and the potential risk of bladder and rectum ischemia. The use of small-diameter hydrophilic microcatheters is mandatory. Patients can be treated safely by PAE with low rates of side effects, reducing prostate volume with clinical symptoms and quality of life improvement without urinary incontinence, ejaculatory disorders, or erectile dysfunction. A multidisciplinary approach with urologists and interventional radiologists is essential to achieve better results.