Value of magnetic resonance angiography before prostatic artery embolization for intervention planning.

Knowledge about anatomical details seems to facilitate the procedure and planning of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPS). The aim of our study was the pre-interventional visualization of the prostatic artery (PA) with MRA and the correlation of iliac elongation and bifurcation angles with technical success of PAE and technical parameters. MRA data of patients with PAE were analysed retrospectively regarding PA visibility, PA type, vessel elongation, and defined angles were correlated with intervention time, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK), contrast media (CM) dose and technical success of embolization. T-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and Kruskal-Wallis test was applied for statistical analysis. Between April 2018 and March 2021, a total of 78 patients were included. MRA identified the PA origin in 126 of 147 cases (accuracy 86%). Vessel elongation affected time for catheterization of right PA (p = 0.02), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.05), and CM dose (p = 0.02) significantly. Moderate correlation was observed for iliac bifurcation angles with DAP (r = 0.30 left; r = 0.34 right; p = 0.01) and CAK (r = 0.32 left; r = 0.36 right; p = 0.01) on both sides. Comparing the first half and second half of patients, median intervention time (125 vs. 105 min.) and number of iliac CBCT could be reduced (p < 0.001). We conclude that MRA could depict exact pelvic artery configuration, identify PA origin, and might obviate iliac CBCT. Vessel elongation of pelvic arteries increased intervention time and contrast media dose while the PA origin had no significant influence on intervention time and/or technical success.

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients with Refractory Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms after a Prior Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment.

The purpose of this study was to report on prostatic artery embolization (PAE) outcomes in patients with refractory or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who had previously undergone a minimally invasive surgical technique (MIST). A single-center retrospective study identified 16 eligible patients. Baseline prostate volume at the time of PAE was 112.9 mL (SD ± 52.7). There were no adverse events throughout the follow-up period. There was significant improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life from baseline of 23.5 (SD ± 5.1) and 4.9 (SD ± 0.9), respectively, to the last follow-up of 11.6 (SD ± 7.2) and 2 (SD ± 1.6), respectively. There was nonsignificant improvement in sexual function after PAE compared with baseline after MIST. PAE can be a safe and effective treatment in patients who have undergone prior MIST without negatively impacting erectile or ejaculatory function.

[Minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia : The German S2e guideline 2023-part 4]. / Minimalinvasive Therapien des benignen Prostatasyndroms : Die deutsche S2e-Leitlinie 2023 ­ Teil 4/4.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive for benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) are one of the most frequent diseases in men and can have a significant impact on quality of life. Instrumental therapies are common, and many patients seek minimally invasive treatment options. OBJECTIVE: Presentation and evidence-based evaluation of the minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Summary and overview of chapters 11-13 on minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO of the current long version of the German S2e guideline. RESULTS: In case of absolute indication for surgery or after unsatisfactory or undesired medical therapy, minimally invasive treatments such as UroLift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA), Rezá¿¡m™ (Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA, USA), iTIND™ (Olympus America Inc., Westborough, MA, USA), and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be considered. These indirect/delayed ablative therapies offer lower morbidity and the possibility of performing them under local anesthesia, but they are inferior to direct ablative/resective techniques in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The updated German S2e guideline summarizes evidence-based recommendations for new minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO, which present alternative treatment options for selected patients.

Comparing prostatic artery embolization to surgical and minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To summarize current evidence to report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies published from inception until August 2021. The search terms used were (prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization) AND (prostatic hyperplasia OR prostatic obstruction) as well as the abbreviations of PAE and BPH. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4. RESULTS: Seven studies were included with 810 patients: five RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. The included studies had considerable risk of bias concerns. TURP and OSP were associated with more statistically significant improvements in urodynamic measures and BPH symptoms compared to PAE. However, PAE seems to significantly improve erectile dysfunction compared to OSP and improve other outcome measures compared to TURP, although not significantly. PAE appeared to reduce adverse events and report more minor complications compared with TURP and OSP, but it is unclear whether PAE is more effective in the long-term. CONCLUSION: PAE is an emerging treatment option for patients with symptomatic BPH who cannot undergo surgery or have undergone failed medical therapy. Overall, PAE groups reported fewer adverse events. Future ongoing and longer-term studies are needed to provide better insight into the benefit of PAE compared to other treatment options.

Cardiovascular Comorbidities Do Not Impact Prostate Artery Embolisation (PAE) Outcomes: Retrospective Analysis of the National UK-ROPE Registry.

PURPOSE: Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a key treatment for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Common cardiovascular risk factors might be associated with suboptimal outcomes and thus influence patient treatment selection. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether cardiovascular comorbidities affect PAE outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective subset analysis of the UK Registry of Prostate Artery Embolisation (UK-ROPE) database was performed with patients who had a full documented past medical histories including hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes and smoking status as well as international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at baseline and at 12 months. Multiple regression was performed to assess for any significant predictors. RESULTS: Comorbidity data were available for 100/216 patients (mean age 65.8 ± 6.4 years), baseline IPSS 20.9 ± 7.0). Regression analysis revealed that the presence of hypertension (53.7% IPSS reduction vs. absence 51.4%, p = 0.94), diabetes (52.6% vs. absence 52.1%, p = 0.6), CAD (59.2% vs. absence 51.4%, p = 0.95), no comorbidities (49.8% vs. any comorbidity present 55.3%, p = 0.66), smoking status (non-smoker, 52.6%, current smoker, 61.5%, ex-smoker, 49.8%, p > 0.05), age (p = 0.52) and baseline Qmax (p = 0.41) did not significantly impact IPSS reduction at 12 months post-PAE. Baseline prostate volume significantly influenced IPSS reduction (≥ 80 cc prostates, 58.9% vs. < 80 cc prostates 43.2%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The presence of cardiovascular comorbidities/smoking history does not appear to significantly impact PAE symptom score outcomes at 12 months post procedure. Our findings suggest that if the prostatic artery can be accessed, then clinical success is comparable to those without cardiovascular comorbidities.

Virtual Injection Software Reduces Radiation Exposure and Procedural Time of Prostatic Artery Embolization Performed with Cone-Beam CT.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of virtual injection software (VIS) use during cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-guided prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on both patient radiation exposure and procedural time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved comparative retrospective study analyzed the treatment at a single institution of 131 consecutive patients from January 2020 to May 2022. Cone-beam CT was used with (Group 1, 77/131; 58.8%) or without VIS (Group 2, 54/131, 41.2%). Radiation exposure (number of digital subtraction angiography [DSA] procedures), dose area product (DAP), total air kerma (AK), peak skin dose (PSD), fluoroscopy time (FT), and procedure time (PT) were recorded. The influences of age, body mass index, radial access, and use of VIS were assessed. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, VIS use (Group 1) showed reduction in the number of DSA procedures (8.6 ± 3.7 vs 16.8 ± 4.3; P < .001), DAP (110.4 Gy·cm2 ± 46.8 vs 140.5 Gy·cm2 ± 61; P < .01), AK (642 mGy ± 451 vs 1,150 mGy ± 637; P = .01), PSD (358 mGy ± 251 vs 860 mGy ± 510; P = .001), FT (35.6 minutes ± 15.4 vs 46.6 minutes ± 20; P = .001), and PT (94.6 minutes ± 41.3 vs 115.2 minutes ± 39.6, P = .005) compared to those in Group 2. In multivariate analysis, AK, PSD, FT, and PT reductions were associated with VIS use (P < .001, P < .001, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIS during PAE performed under cone-beam CT guidance led to significant reduction in patient radiation exposure and procedural time.

Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access.

PURPOSE: To compare prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA-PAE) versus transfemoral access (TFA-PAE) to assist access selection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Procedural outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in 998 patients who underwent PAE at a single center from April 2014 to August 2022; 821 (82%) underwent TRA-PAE (Group R) and 177 (18%) underwent TFA-PAE (Group F). Mean age and prostate size of Groups R and F were 69.2 years (SD ± 8.4) and 117.4 g (SD ± 63.1) and 75.2 years (SD ± 12.1) and 127.2 g (SD ± 83.6), respectively (P < .01 and P = .16; postpropensity matching: P = .38 and P = .35, respectively). Indications for PAE included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute or chronic urinary retention, and hematuria. Procedural and patient-specific metrics were reviewed. Technical success was defined as bilateral PAE. Adverse events were recorded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse events classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 798 (97.2%) patients in Group R and 165 (93.2%) patients in Group F. Mean procedural time, single- and continuous-rotation fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were significantly lower in Group R than in Group F (P < .001). Moreover, 6 (0.7%) patients in Group R and 9 (5.5%) patients in Group F had access site ecchymoses, whereas 5 (0.6%) patients in Group R and 6 (3.6%) in Group F had access site hematomas. Two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) after TRA-PAE and recovered without intervention. Two occult radial artery occlusions were noted, but no patient experienced hand ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In a large single interventional radiologist cohort, TRA-PAE demonstrated similar technical success to that of TFA-PAE with lower access site hemorrhagic complications and radiation requirements; however, TIA and occult radial artery occlusions remain a concern.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Using Polyethylene Glycol Microspheres: A 1-Year Follow-up Prospective Study Including 30 Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) using polyethylene glycol (PEG) microspheres in patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective study of 30 patients who underwent PAE from August 2020 to December 2021 using PEG 400-µm microspheres was conducted. Patient evaluation data using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), and prostate volume (PV) at baseline and 3 and 12 months after PAE were obtained. RESULTS: Bilateral PAE was performed in all patients. One patient had early clinical failure (3.3%) and another presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) recurrence (3.3%) at the 12-month follow-up. Twenty-eight patients (93.3%) experienced significant and durable LUTS improvement. Mean absolute (and relative) improvement at 3 and 12 months were: IPSS, 14.6 points (-69%) for both; QoL, 3.3 points (-70%) and 3.5 points (-74%); Qmax, 6.3 mL/s (+78%) and 8.6 mL/s (+100%); PSA reduction, 1.2 ng/mL (-22%) and 1.0 ng/mL (-15%); PVR reduction, 48 mL (-56%) and 58.2 mL (-49%); PV reduction, 23.4 cm3 (-29%) and 19.6cm3 (-25%); (P < .05 for all). No major adverse events were observed. Minor adverse events included urinary tract infection (4/30, 13.3%), prostatic tissue elimination (3/30, 10%), penile punctiform ulcer (1/30, 3.3%), and urinary retention (1/30, 3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: PAE using PEG microspheres was observed to be effective with sustained LUTS improvement at the 12-month follow-up. The incidence of urinary infection and prostatic tissue elimination was higher than previously reported for other embolics.

[Clinical case: bladder necrosis after prostate embolization in a patient with prostatic hyperplasia].

This article describes a clinical case of bladder necrosis developed after X-ray endovascular embolization of prostatic arteries of a 62-year-old patient with a verified diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia). The complication resulted in the necessity of urgent surgical intervention, namely, laparotomy, cystprostatectomy and bilateral percutaneous nephrostomy. In the early postoperative period the patient had intense cutting pain in the left side of the abdomen. Examination revealed the inflow of small intestinal contents through the pelvic drainage, which was the reason for relaparotomy, abdominal cavity revision, uturing the small intestine perforation, suturing the small intestine pre-perforation, sanation and drainage of the abdominal cavity in an emergency procedure. The patient was discharged in a satisfactory condition under the supervision of a urologist by m/w on the 36th day after endovascular embolization of prostatic arteries. The eight months after discharge, the patient underwent a successful Brickers operation on creating an alternative urinary diversion route at the First Sechenov Moscow State Medical University of the Russian Federation.

N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Glue Versus Nonspherical Polyvinyl Alcohol Particles For Prostatic Arterial Embolization To Treat Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Safety and Efficacy.

PURPOSE: Our aim is to compare N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) glue and non-spherical polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and report their feasibility, safety, and short-term effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 110 patients (mean age: 72.6 years) with BPH related to LUTS were divided into two groups, PAE was performed in one group with 250 - 355 µm non-spherical PVA particles. Whereas, the other group received a mixture of NBCA glue/ lipiodol for PAE. RESULTS: PAE was technically successful in all 110 patients (100 %). During 6 months follow up, we found that in patients who received NBCA glue, the mean of prostatic volume (PV) was significantly reduced compared to baseline (67.1 ± 8.5 to 40.2 ± 5.4), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (25.7 ± 4.3 to 7.2 ± 1.09), Quality of life (QoL) (4.43 ± 0.27 to 1.58 ± 2.27); whereas, the mean of Peak urinary flow (Qmax) increased significantly from baseline to 6 months (8.6 ± 2.3 to 15.4 ± 2.3), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEFS) (9.46 ± 1.51 to 19.3 ± 1.33). Meanwhile, non-spherical PVA particles used in the other group show that PV significantly reduced from baseline to 6 months (68.2 ± 8.32 to 38.8 ± 6.13), IPSS (25.0 ± 3.59 to7.24 ± 0.83), QoL (4.43 ± 0.24 to1.56 ± 0.55). The mean for Qmax increased from baseline to 6 months (7.19 ± 1.67 to15.1 ± 2.42), IIEFS (9.22 ± 1.30 to 19.5 ± 0.96). CONCLUSION: PAE with NBCA glue and non-spherical PVA particles is feasible, safe, and effective for patients with BPH related-LUTS. This gives the physicians options to choose between embolizing agents based on the architecture of the prostatic artery.

[Penile necrosis, a specific complication of prostatic artery embolization]. / Nécrose pénienne, une complication spécifique de l'embolisation prostatique.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic surgery is the standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) refractory to pharmacological treatments. In order to reduce invasiveness and preserve sexual function, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been developed. However, the technical difficulties of carrying out this procedure and the results, which have yet to be confirmed, mean that it is not currently recommended. The seriousness of the complications generated should lead to a reflection on the benefit-risk balance. The objective is to report a case of penile ischemia after embolization of the prostatic arteries. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A severe complication following prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is reported with its clinical and paraclinical evaluation before and after the procedure as well as the therapeutic management. RESULTS: Penile necrosis following prostatic artery embolization was reported in a 75-year-old patient despite an attempt of deobstruction. Lower urinary tract symptoms worsened postoperatively, associated with glans necrosis and refractory erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSION: The place of PAE in the therapeutic arsenal of BPH needs to be confirmed. This innovative technique exposes the patient to potentially severe risks such as penile ischemia, not encountered in conventional endoscopic surgical treatment. PAE should not be included in the therapeutic armamentarium for BPH outside of clinical trials.

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.

Benefits of Repeat Prostatic Artery Embolization on Persistent or Recurrent Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits of repeat prostatic artery embolization (rePAE) for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after initial prostatic artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of all patients who underwent a rePAE between December 2014 and November 2020 for persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms. Symptoms were assessed before and after PAE and rePAE, using the International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. Patient characteristics, anatomical presentations, technical success rates, and complications of both procedures were collected. Clinical failure was defined as one of the following: less than 2 points' decrease in QoL, a QoL score higher than 3, acute urinary retention, and secondary surgery. RESULTS: A total of 21 consecutive patients (mean age: 63.8 ± 8.1; [40-75] years) who underwent rePAE were included. The median follow-up after PAE was 27.7 [18.1-36.9]) months and 8.9 [3.4-10.8] months after rePAE. rePAE was performed at a mean of 19 ± 11.1 [6.9-49.6] months following PAE, and the overall clinical success rate was 33% (7/21). In patients undergoing rePAE because of persistent symptoms, the clinical success rate (18%) was non-significantly lower than that for patients treated for recurrent symptoms (50%) [OR 4.5 (95% CI 0.63-32 P = 0.13)]. The main anatomical revascularization pattern was recanalization of the native prostatic artery (29/45, 66%). CONCLUSION: Patients who experience recurrent symptoms after PAE may benefit more from rePAE than those with persistent symptoms after PAE. Clinical success rates seem to be relatively low in both clinical scenarios.