Artificial urinary sphincter for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a historical cohort from 2004 to 2015

ABSTRACT This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate a cohort of patients with prostate cancer and persistent urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. From January 2004 to December 2015, eighty-six individuals were identified to have received an AUS implant, provided by a private nonprofit HMO operating in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. On total, there were 91 AUS implants, with a median interval between radical prostatectomy and AUS implant of 3.6 years (IQR 1.9 to 5.5). The rate of AUS cumulative survival, after a median follow-up of 4.1 years (IQR 1.7-7.2 years), was 44% (n=40). The median survival of AUS implants was 2.9 years (IQR 0.5-7.9 years). Thirty-seven AUS implants (40.7%) resulted in grade III surgical complications. There were 5 deaths at 2.1, 4.7, 5.7, 5.7 and 6.5 years of follow-up, but none due to causes directly associated to the AUS implant. Persistent severe incontinence was documented in 14 (15.3%) additional patients. From the 51 AUS implants which resulted in grade III surgical complications or persistent severe incontinence, 24 (47.1%) underwent surgical revisions. Explantation of the sphincter or its components was observed in 6 cases (25.0%). Mechanical failure, described as fluid loss and/or inability to recycle the AUS device, was observed in 4 devices (16.7%). In conclusion, although AUS implants are recommended as the gold-standard treatment of severe urinary incontinence after prostatectomy, the observed high rates of malfunction and grade III adverse events are a matter of concern warranting further assessment on the safety and efficacy of these devices.

Stents farmacológicos: existe lugar para seu uso? / Pharmacological stents: is there room for their use?

As intervenções coronarianas percutâneas representam importante estratégia de revascularização do miocárdio. Na evolução dos procedimentos de intervenção percutânea sobre as coronárias, os stents farmacológicos ou recobertos com drogas surgiram como opção mais eficaz que os não-farmacológicos, por diminuírem, de forma significativa,os riscos de reestenose angiográfica. Mais recentemente, surgiram publicações apontando para um risco maior de trombose associada aos stents farmacológicos. Sendo a trombose um evento agudo que, do ponto de vista fisiopatológico, representa o substrato anatômico da síndrome coronariana aguda, inclusive do infarto agudo do miocárdio, os resultados destas publicações desencadearam dúvidas quanto à segurança dos stents recobertos com drogas. Os stents farmacológicos não oferecem ganho adicional, se comparados aos stents não farmacológicos, no tratamento da doença coronariana nas indicações primárias para uso dos mesmos (as chamadas indicações on label, estabelecidas pelo FDA, quando aprovou o uso destes dispositivos). Há consistência entre vários ensaios publicados apontando que o uso que extrapola estas indicações, e, que tem sido o mais comum, associa-se a riscos mais altos de morte e infarto. Os resultados com o uso de stents farmacológicos e não farmacológicos se equivalem, portanto deve ser utilizado aquele com melhor relação custo-benefício.