ABSTRACT
Background: Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction is emerging as a promising treatment option. Aim: This randomized sham-controlled crossover trial assessed the efficacy of low-intensity shockwave therapy in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Methods: Thirty-three participants with organic erectile dysfunction were enrolled and randomized to shockwave therapy (n = 17) or sham (n = 16). The sham group was allowed to cross over to receive shockwave therapy after 1 month. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were the changes in Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score and Erection Hardness Score at 1 month following shockwave therapy vs sham, and secondary outcomes were erectile function measurements at 1, 3, and 6 months following shockwave therapy. Results: At 1 month, mean SHIM scores were significantly increased in the shockwave therapy arm as compared with the sham arm (+3.0 vs -0.7, P = .024). Participants at 6 months posttreatment (n = 33) showed a mean increase of 5.5 points vs baseline (P < .001), with 20 (54.6%) having an increase ≥5. Of the 25 men with an initial Erection Hardness Score <3, 68% improved to a score ≥3 at 6 months. When compared with baseline, the entire cohort demonstrated significant increases in erectile function outcomes at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Clinical Implications: In this randomized sham-controlled crossover trial, we showed that 54.6% of participants with organic erectile dysfunction met the minimal clinically important difference in SHIM scores after treatment with low-intensity shockwave therapy. Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of this study include a sham-controlled group that crossed over to treatment. Limitations include a modest sample size at a single institution. Conclusions: Low-intensity shockwave therapy improves erectile function in men with erectile dysfunction as compared with sham treatment, which persists even 6 months after treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04434352.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate whether pre-procedure Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) improves radiation exposure, procedure complexity, and symptom recurrence after bronchial embolization for massive hemoptysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of bronchial artery embolization (BAE) for massive hemoptysis was performed for procedures between 2008 and 2019. Multi-variate analysis was performed to determine the significance of pre-procedure CTA and etiology of hemoptysis on patient radiation exposure (reference point air kerma, RPAK) and rate of recurrent hemoptysis. RESULTS: There were 61 patients (mean age 52.5 years; SD = 19.2 years, and 57.3% male) and CTA was obtained for 42.6% (26/61). Number of vessels selected was a mean of 7.2 (SD = 3.4) in those without CTA and 7.4 (SD = 3.4) in those with CTA (p = 0.923). Mean procedure duration was 1.8 h (SD = 1.6 h) in those without CTA and 1.3 h (SD = 1.0 h) in those with CTA (p = 0.466). Mean fluoroscopy time and RPAK per procedure were 34.9 min (SD = 21.5 min) and 1091.7 mGy (SD = 1316.6 mGy) for those without a CTA and 30.7 min (SD = 30.7 min) and 771.5 mGy (SD = 590.0 mGy) for those with a CTA (p = 0.523, and p = 0.879, respectively). Mean total iodine given was 49.2 g (SD = 31.9 g) for those without a CTA and 70.6 g (SD = 24.9 g) for those with a CTA (p = 0.001). Ongoing hemoptysis at last clinical follow up was 13/35 (37.1%) in those without CTA and 9/26 (34.6%) in those with CTA (p = 0.794). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-procedure CTA did not improve radiation effective dose and symptom recurrence after BAE and is associated with significant increases in total iodine dose.
