ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To describe clinical outcomes among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) 24 months following prostatic artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, prospective trial of males with BPH with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or acute urinary retention (AUR) treated with PAE. The primary outcome was the 12 month change in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for patients referred for bothersome LUTS, or urinary catheter independence for patients treated for AUR. Secondary outcome measures included changes in IPSS at 3 and 24 months, changes in quality of life (QoL), changes in the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) questionnaire, technical success rate, and adverse events (AEs). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-eight consecutive patients underwent PAE (bothersome LUTS: N = 405; AUR: N = 73), mean age was 70 years. For patients treated for bothersome LUTS, mean total IPSS at baseline was 21.8 and decreased to 9.3, 10.6, and 11.2 at 3, 12, and 24 months following PAE, respectively (all p < 0.001); QoL at baseline was 4.7 and decreased to 2.0, 2.1, and 2.3 at 3, 12, and 24 months, respectively (all p < 0.001). The mean SHIM score at baseline and 12 months following PAE was 13.8 and 13.9, respectively. Of the 73 patients treated for AUR, 48 (65.8%) had their indwelling catheter removed within 3 months of PAE and remained catheter free at 24 months. Fifty-five patients (11.5%) experienced ≥ 1 AE and 10 (2.1%) experienced a serious AE. CONCLUSION: PAE is a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic BPH and LUTS. Level of Evidence Level 3 Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03527589.
Subject(s)
Arteries , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Embolization, Therapeutic/standards , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/therapy , Prostate/blood supply , Prostatic Hyperplasia/therapy , Radiography, Interventional/standards , Research Design/standards , Terminology as Topic , Arteries/diagnostic imaging , Consensus , Embolization, Therapeutic/adverse effects , Humans , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/diagnostic imaging , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/physiopathology , Male , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Prostatic Hyperplasia/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Hyperplasia/physiopathology , Radiography, Interventional/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Arteries , Embolization, Therapeutic/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/therapy , Prostate/blood supply , Prostatic Hyperplasia/therapy , Urology/standards , Consensus , Humans , Injections, Intra-Arterial , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/diagnostic imaging , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/etiology , Male , Prostatic Hyperplasia/complications , Prostatic Hyperplasia/diagnostic imaging , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to determine the variability of various measurement protocols for measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and the clinical relevance of variability. Three radiologists performed computed tomographic angiography measurements of both the aorta and the largest portion of the aneurysm on selected axial slices. Then measurements of the largest portion of the aneurysm were performed on unselected axial slices, sagittal and coronal reformatted. Finally, aortic volume was calculated. Measurements and volume calculation were performed before and after endovascular repair and assessed: Part 1: interobserver variability for maximum anteroposterior (MAP) and maximum transverse (MTR) diameters on selected slices; part 2: interobserver variability for unselected slices considering MAP and MTR; part 3: interobserver variability considering maximum diameter in any direction (MAD); part 4: interobserver variability for sagittal (SAG) and coronal (COR) free curved multiplanar reformation (MPR); and part 5: volume calculations. We then determined which technique of measurement was the most clinically relevant for detecting changes in aneurysm size or aortic volume. Parts 1 and 2: interobserver variability was 4.1 mm for both MAP and MTR; part 3: interobserver variability was 7 mm for MAD; part 4: interobserver variability was 5.5 mm (COR) and 4.9 mm (SAG); part 5: interobserver variability for volume was 5.5 ml. A combination of MAP and MTR was the most useful for detecting aortic modification. Volume calculation was needed in only a few cases. We recommend avoiding MAD and MPR measurements and suggest instead measuring both maximum anteroposterior and maximum transverse diameters. If aneurysm size remains stable after endovascular repair, aneurysm volume should be measured.