Minimally Invasive Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Economic Evaluation from a Standardized Hospital Case Costing System.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) such as prostate arterial embolization (PAE) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are being explored as adjuncts in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, there are conflicting reports of the costs of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the direct and indirect hospital costs of TURP, PAE and PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed in patients who underwent TURP, PVP and PAE from April 2015 to March 2017. All hospital costs were collected in accordance with the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, a standardized medical case costing system. Costs were characterized as direct or indirect and fixed or variable. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to study cost uncertainty. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 209 men underwent TURP, 28 PVP and 21 PAE. Mean age (years) was as follows: TURP 71.43; PVP 73.66; PAE 70.77 (p = 0.366). Mean length of stay (days) was as follows: TURP 1.63; PVP 1.55; PAE 1 (p = 0.076). Total costs of the PAE group ($3829, SD $1582) were less than both PVP ($5719, SD $1515) and TURP groups ($5034, SD $1997, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in direct costs between the groups. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that PAE was the least costly alternative majority of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The total hospital costs of PAE at our institution are significantly lower than those of PVP and TURP.

Cost Analysis of Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP; however, there are limited cost comparisons reported. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital direct costs of elective PAE and TURP in a hospital setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing PAE and TURP from January to December 2014. Inclusion criteria included male patients greater than 40 years of age who presented for ambulatory TURP or PAE with no history of prior surgical intervention for BPH. Direct costs were categorized into the following categories: nursing and operating room or interventional room staffing, operating room or interventional supply costs, anesthesia supplies, anesthesia staffing, hospital room cost, radiology, and laboratory costs. Additionally, length of stay was evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: The mean patient age for the TURP (n = 86) and PAE (n = 70) cohorts was 71.3 and 64.4 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). Intra-procedural supplies for PAE were significantly more costly than TURP ($1472.77 vs $1080.84, p < 0.0001). When including anesthesia supplies and nursing/staffing, costs were significantly more expensive for TURP than PAE ($2153.64 vs $1667.10 p < 0.0001). The average length of stay for the TURP group was longer at 1.38 versus 0.125 days for the PAE group. Total in-hospital costs for the TURP group ($5338.31, SD $3521.17) were significantly higher than for PAE ($1678.14, SD $442.0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to TURP, PAE was associated with significantly lower direct in-hospital costs and shorter hospital stay.

Prostate artery embolization: a new, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement.

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as a safe and efficacious treatment which approaches benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) from a unique perspective. This brings with it distinct advantages and solutions, which we discuss along with cost, evidence, complications and disadvantages.

Intra-vesical Prostatic Protrusion (IPP) Can Be Reduced by Prostatic Artery Embolization.

BACKGROUND: Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a new approach to improve lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. PAE results in global reduction of prostate volume (PV). There are no data available on the efficacy of PAE in reducing intra-vesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), an anatomic feature that is clinically related with bladder outlet obstruction and LUTS. OBJECTIVE: To assess the results of PAE in patients with significant IPP due to median lobe hyperplasia and to compare the IPSS decrease and IPP change. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective analysis of 18 consecutive patients with significant IPP (>5 mm) related to median lobe hyperplasia undergoing PAE using 30-500-µm-calibrated trisacryl microspheres. We measured IPP on sagittal T2-weighted images before and 3 months after PAE. IPSS and clinical results were also evaluated at 3 months. RESULTS: PAE resulted in significant IPP reduction (1.57 cm ± 0.55 before PAE and 1.30 cm ± 0.46 after PAE, p = 0.0005) (Fig. 1) with no complication. IPSS, quality of life (QoL), total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and PV showed significant reduction after PAE, and maximum urinary flow rate (Q max) showed significant increase after PAE. No significant change of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) for clinical evaluation after PAE. A significant correlation was found between the IPP change and the IPSS change (r = 0.636, p = 0.0045). CONCLUSION: Patients had significant IPP reduction as well as significant symptomatic improvement after PAE, and these improvements were positively correlated.