Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

PURPOSE: To perform a post hoc cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis over a 5-year period to compare PAE versus TURP from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial performed at a single institution. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from the cost and QALY values associated with these treatments. Further sensitivity analysis was performed to account for the impact of reintervention on the cost-effectiveness of both procedures. RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, PAE resulted in mean cost per patient of €2904.68 and outcome of 0.975 QALYs per treatment. In comparison, TURP had cost €3846.72 per patient and its outcome was 0.953 QALYs per treatment. At 5 years, the cost for PAE and TURP were €4117.13 and €4297.58, and the mean QALY outcome was 4.572 and 4.487, respectively. Analysis revealed an ICER of €2121.15 saved per QALY gained when comparing PAE to TURP at long-term follow-up. Reintervention rate for PAE and TURP was 12% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP, in short term, PAE could be considered a cost-effective strategy within the Spanish healthcare system for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, in long term, the superiority is less apparent due to higher reintervention rates.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Post Hoc Cost Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To perform a post hoc analysis of patient-incurred costs in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients older than 60 years with indication of TURP were randomized to PAE or TURP procedure. After intervention and hospital discharge, patients were follow-up during 12 months The associated patient costs were categorized according to the study period: pre-intervention, intervention, hospitalization, and follow-up. Several items for both groups were analyzed within each study period. RESULTS: The mean total costs per patient were lower for PAE (€ 3,192.87) than for TURP (€ 3,974.57), with this difference of € 781.70 being significant (p = 0.026). For most evaluated items, the mean costs were significantly higher for TURP. No significant differences were observed in the mean costs of PAE (€ 1,468.00) and TURP (€ 1,684.25) procedures (p = 0.061). However, the histopathology analysis, recovery room stay, and intraoperative laboratory analysis increased the interventional costs for TURP (€ 1,999.70) compared with PAE (€ 1,468.00) (p < 0.001). No cost differences were observed between PAE (€ 725.26) and TURP (€ 556.22) during the 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.605). None of patients required a repeat intervention during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the short-term follow-up, PAE was associated with significantly lower costs compared with TURP. Future investigations in the context of routine clinical practice should be aimed at comparing the long-term effectiveness of both procedures and determining their cost-effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1 (a-c).

Randomized Comparison of Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with those of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Noninferiority randomized trial was conducted involving men over 60 years of age with LUTS secondary to BPH. From November 2014 to January 2017, 45 patients were randomized to PAE (n = 23) or to TURP (n = 22). PAE was performed with 300- to 500-µm microspheres with the patient under local anesthesia, whereas bipolar TURP was performed with the patients under spinal or general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were changes in peak urinary flow (Qmax) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 months. Quality of life (QoL), and prostate volume (PV) changes from baseline to 12 month were secondary outcomes. Adverse events were compared using the Clavien classification. RESULTS: Mean Qmax increased from 6.1 mL/s in the PAE group and from 9.6 mL/s in the TURP patients (P = .862 for noninferiority), and mean IPSS reduction was 21.0 points for PAE and 18.2 points for TURP subjects (P = .080) at 12 months. A greater QoL improvement was reported in the PAE group (3.78 points for PAE and 3.09 points for TURP; P = .002). Mean PV reduction was 20.5 cm³ (34.2%) for PAE subjects and 44.7 cm³ (71.2%) for TURP subjects (P < .001). There were fewer adverse events reported in the PAE group than in the TURP group (n = 15 vs n = 47; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of LUTS in the PAE group was similar to that in the TURP group at 12 months, with fewer complications secondary to PAE. Long-term follow-up is needed to compare the durability of the symptomatic improvement from each procedure.