Repeat Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeat prostatic artery (PA) embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2018 in 108 patients with symptomatic BPH treated with repeat PAE: group A (n = 39; 36.1%) were patients who never showed a response to PAE, and group B (n = 69; 63.9%) were patients who had clinical improvement in the first 6 months following PAE but relapsing symptoms afterward. The main patterns of revascularization were 75% from the previously embolized PA and 25% from collateral vessels (superior vesical, posterior-lateral PA, penile branches). Technical outcomes and adverse events were registered. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), and clinical success were compared between groups. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-36 mo); median interval between PAE and repeat PAE was 420 days (range, 77-2,240 d). Mean procedural time was significantly longer for repeat PAE vs initial PAE (81.1 min vs 67.4 min; P = .0007). There were no major complications and no urinary incontinence. Mean IPSS/QOL improvements were greater in group B vs group A: 9.51 vs 6.13 and 1.30 vs 0.56, respectively (P < .001). The cumulative probability of clinical success after repeat PAE was higher in group B than in group A (P = .0001): 84.1% vs 46.2% at 1 month, 56.7% vs 28.2% at 12 months, and 51.9% vs 16.9% at 24-36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat PAE is safe and effective for recurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms caused by BPH but has limited impact in patients who did not show a response to initial PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Prospective Randomized Trial of 100-300 µm versus 300-500 µm versus 100- to 300-µm + 300- to 500-µm Embospheres.

PURPOSE: This study compared the safety and efficacy of prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) with that of trisacryl gelatin microspheres of different sizes for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial in 138 patients who underwent PAE for BPH between July 2015 and December 2016. Patients were randomized to PAE using microspheres of different sizes: group A patients were treated with microspheres 100-300 µm, group B with 300-500 µm, and group C with 100-300 µm followed by 300-500 µm. All patients were evaluated before and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after PAE. Baseline data were comparable across the 3 groups, using the following mean International Prostate Symptom Score/quality of life (IPSS/QoL); prostate volume (PV) scores, respectively: 23.0/4.14; 87.9 cm3 (group A); 23.0/4.09; 89.0 cm3 (group B); and 24.2/4.29; 81.0 cm3 (group C) (P > 0.05). RESULTS: Mean IPSS/QoL scores; PV after PAE were: 9.98/2.49; 65.1 cm3 (group A); 8.24/2.26; 63.1 cm3 (group B); and 10.1/2.69; 53.1 cm3 (group C) (P = 0.23; P = 0.39; P = 0.24). There were 26 clinical failures. The cumulative probabilities of clinical success at 18 months were 76.7% in group A, 82.6% in group B, and 83.3% in group C (P = 0.68). Nontarget embolization was prevented in 6 patients by coil embolization. All adverse events were mild and self-limited with rates of 86.0% in group A (37 of 43); 41.3% in group B (19 of 46); and 58.3% in group C (28 of 48) (P < 0.001). Dysuria was the most frequent adverse event (28 of 137 [20.4%]). CONCLUSIONS: PAE outcomes were not significantly different among microspheres of different sizes. The use of 100- to 300-µm microspheres was associated with an increased risk of minor adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Prostatic Artery Chemoembolization for Prostate Cancer-Initial Experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate outcome of prostatic artery chemoembolization for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study was conducted between August 2013 and July 2016 in 20 patients with PCa who underwent chemoembolization. Mean patient age was 67.5 years ± 6.4. Gleason score was 6-10, and staging was T2N0M0. Fifteen patients refused prostatectomy and 5 wanted to stop hormonal therapy because of side effects. For chemoembolization, Chelidonium majus mother tincture 1 mL was slowly injected into the prostatic arteries. Docetaxel 1 mL and 150-300 µm Embosphere (Merit Medical Systems, Inc, South Jordan, Utah) microspheres 0.5 mL were thoroughly mixed, and the mixture was slowly injected by the same route. Embolization of prostatic arteries was finished with 150-300 µm Embosphere microspheres. Technical success was defined as bilateral prostatic artery embolization. Biochemical failure was defined as prostate specific antigen (PSA) decrease to < 2 ng/mL followed by recurrence when PSA increased to > 2 ng/mL within 1 month after success. RESULTS: Technical success was 80.0% (16/20 patients). Biochemical failure was 18.7% (3/16 patients). There was 1 short-term biochemical recurrence at 4 months and 2 midterm recurrences (12-18 months). Biochemical success at 12-18 months was 62.5% (10/16 patients). Adverse events (31.3%) included a small area (2 cm2) of bladder wall ischemia, which was removed by surgery (n = 1); transient acute urinary retention (n = 1) and urinary urgency (n = 1) for 1 week; sexual dysfunction (n = 2), which completely recovered after 10 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic artery chemoembolization allowed a biochemical response in patients with localized PCa and is a promising treatment.

Medium- and Long-Term Outcome of Prostate Artery Embolization for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Results in 630 Patients.

PURPOSE: To confirm that prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has a positive medium- and long-term effect in symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 2009 and October 2014, 630 consecutive patients with BPH and moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms refractory to medical therapy for at least 6 months or who refused any medical therapy underwent PAE. Outcome parameters were evaluated at baseline; 1, 3, and 6 months; every 6 months between 1 and 3 years; and yearly thereafter up to 6.5 years. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 65.1 years ± 8.0 (range, 40-89 y). There were 12 (1.9%) technical failures. Bilateral PAE was performed in 572 (92.6%) patients and unilateral PAE was performed in 46 (7.4%) patients. The cumulative clinical success rates at medium- and long-term follow-up were 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.3%-84.9%) and 76.3% (95% CI, 68.6%-82.4%). There was a statistically significant (P < .0001) change from baseline to last observed value in all clinical parameters: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QOL), prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen, urinary maximal flow rate, postvoid residual, and International Index of Erectile Function. There were 2 major complications without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: PAE had a positive effect on IPSS, QOL, and all objective outcomes in symptomatic BPH. The medium- (1-3 y) and long-term (> 3-6.5 y) clinical success rates were 81.9% and 76.3%, with no urinary incontinence or sexual dysfunction reported.

Prostate Embolization as an Alternative to Open Surgery in Patients with Large Prostate and Moderate to Severe Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy of prostate artery embolization (PAE) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate volume (PV) > 100 cm(3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Between March 2009 and September 2014, PAE was performed in patients with a diagnosis of BPH, PV > 100 cm(3), and moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) refractory to medical treatment for at least 6 months or who had acute urinary retention. Success was defined as improved symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score ≤ 15 and decrease of ≥ 25% from baseline score), improved quality of life (measured as score of ≤ 3 points or decrease of ≥ 1 point from baseline), and no need for additional treatment. RESULTS: PAE was performed in 152 patients 48-87 years old (mean ± SD 67.4 y ± 7.5) with mean PV of 134.2 cm(3) ± 41.8 (range, 101-383 cm(3)). PAE was technically successful in 149 patients (98.0%). Symptomatic control was achieved for a median of 18 months ± 15.5 (range, 3-66 mo). There were 33 clinical failures (23.6%); 23 occurred in the short-term (≤ 6 mo), and 10 occurred in the medium-term (6-24 mo); there were no long-term failures (> 36 mo). Cumulative clinical success rates were 90%, 87.9%, 83.5%, 81.1%, and 77.8% at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months and 72.4% thereafter to 66 months (5.5 y). CONCLUSIONS: PAE provides sustained short-, medium-, and long-term control for LUTS in patients with BPH and PV > 100 cm(3).

Preoperative Portal Vein Embolization in Hepatic Surgery: A Review about the Embolic Materials and Their Effects on Liver Regeneration and Outcome.

Liver volume and function after hepatectomies are directly correlated to postoperative complications and mortality. Consequently contemporary liver surgery has focused on reaching an adequate future liver remnant so as to diminish postoperative morbidity and mortality. Portal vein embolization has evolved and is the standard of care as a liver regenerative strategy in many surgery departments worldwide before major liver resections. Different embolic materials have been used for portal vein embolization including gelfoam, ethanol, polyvinyl-alcohol particles, calibrated microspheres, central vascular plugs, coils, n-butyl-cyanoacrylate glue, fibrin glue, polidocanol-foam, alcoholic prolamin solution, and ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, as sole occluders or in varied combinations. While to date there has been no prospective controlled trial comparing the efficacy of different embolic materials in portal vein embolization, retrospective data insinuates that the use of n-butyl-cyanoacrylate and absolute ethanol produces higher contralateral liver hypertrophies. In this review, we evaluated publications up to August 2019 to assess the technical and regenerative results of portal vein embolization accomplished with different embolic materials. Special attention was given to specific aspects, advantages, and drawbacks of each embolic agent used for portal vein embolization, its liver regenerative performance, and its influence on patient outcome.

Randomised Clinical Trial of Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus a Sham Procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) has been associated with an improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH), but conclusive evidence of efficacy from randomised controlled clinical trials has been lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of PAE compared with a sham procedure in the treatment of LUTS/BPH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled superiority clinical trial was conducted in 80 males ≥45yr with severe LUTS/BPH refractory to medical treatment from 2014 to 2019 in a private clinic, with efficacy assessments at 6 and 12 mo after randomisation. One patient in the PAE group and three in the sham group did not complete the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 upon successful catheterisation of a prostatic artery to either PAE or a sham PAE procedure without embolisation. After 6 mo, all 38 patients randomised to the sham group who completed the single-blind period underwent PAE, and both groups completed a 6-mo open period. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: An intention-to-treat analysis of all randomised patients was performed. The coprimary outcomes were the change from baseline to 6 mo in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the quality of life (QoL) score at 6 mo, analysed with analysis of covariance and t test, respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Mean age was 63.8±6.0yr, baseline IPSS 26.4±3.87, and QoL score 4.43±0.52. At 6 mo, patients in the PAE arm had a greater improvement in IPSS, with a difference in the change from baseline of 13.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.2-16.2, p<0.0001), and a better QoL score at 6 mo (difference: 2.13; 95% CI 1.57-2.68, p<0.0001) than the patients in the sham arm. The improvements in IPSS and QoL in the sham group 6 mo after they performed PAE were, respectively, 13.6±9.19 (p<0.0001) and 2.05 ± 1.71 (p<0.0001). Adverse events occurred in 14 (35.0%) patients after PAE and in 13 (32.5%) after sham, with one serious adverse event in the sham group during the open period. No treatment failures occurred. Limitations include a single-centre trial, only severe LUTS/BPH, and follow-up limited to 12 mo. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in subjective and objective variables after PAE are far superior from those due to the placebo effect. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clearly superior efficacy of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) compared with a sham procedure was found in this study, which supports the use of PAE in patients with typical symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia.