Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Versus Original and PErFecTED Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): Preliminary Results of a Single Center, Prospective, Urodynamic-Controlled Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and urodynamic results of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to original and PErFecTED prostate artery embolization (PAE) methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: We prospectively randomized 30 patients to receive TURP or original PAE (oPAE) and compared them to a cohort of patients treated by PErFecTED PAE, with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Patients were assessed for urodynamic parameters, prostate volume, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: All groups were comparable for all pre-treatment parameters except bladder contractility and peak urine flow rate (Q max), both of which were significantly better in the TURP group, and IIEF score, which was significantly higher among PErFecTED PAE patients than TURP patients. All groups experienced significant improvement in IPSS, QoL, prostate volume, and Q max. TURP and PErFecTED PAE both resulted in significantly lower IPSS than oPAE but were not significantly different from one another. TURP resulted in significantly higher Q max and significantly smaller prostate volume than either original or PErFecTED PAE but required spinal anesthesia and hospitalization. Two patients in the oPAE group with hypocontractile bladders experienced recurrence of symptoms and were treated with TURP. In the TURP group, urinary incontinence occurred in 4/15 patients (26.7 %), rupture of the prostatic capsule in 1/15 (6.7 %), retrograde ejaculation in all patients (100 %), and one patient was readmitted for temporary bladder irrigation due to hematuria. CONCLUSIONS: TURP and PAE are both safe and effective treatments. TURP and PErFecTED PAE yield similar symptom improvement, but TURP is associated with both better urodynamic results and more adverse events.

Clinical, laboratorial, and urodynamic findings of prostatic artery embolization for the treatment of urinary retention related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. A prospective single-center pilot study.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to describe the clinical, laboratorial, and urodynamic findings of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with urinary retention due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A prospective study of 11 patients with urinary retention due to BPH was conducted. Patients underwent physical examination, prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement, transrectal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. International prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), and urodynamic testing were used to assess the outcome before and after 1 year. RESULTS: Clinical success was 91% (10/11 patients) with a mean follow-up of 22.3 months (range, 12-41 months). At the first year follow-up, the mean IPSS score was 2.8 points (p = 0.04), mean QoL was 0.4 points (p = 0.001), mean PSA decreased from 10.1 to 4.3 ng/mL (p = 0.003), maximum urinary flow (Qmax) improved from 4.2 to 10.8 mL/sec (p = 0.009), and detrusor pressure (Pdet) decreased from 85.7 to 51.5 cm H2O (p = 0.007). Before PAE, Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index (BOOI) showed values >40 in 100% of patients. After PAE, 30% of patients were >40 (obstructed), 40% were between 20 and 40 (undetermined), and 30% were <20 (unobstructed). Patients with a BOOI <20 had higher PSA values at 1-day after PAE. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and urodynamic parameters improved significantly after PAE in patients with acute urinary retention due to BPH. Total PSA at day 1 after PAE was higher in patients with unobstructed values in pressure flow studies.

Quality of life and clinical symptom improvement support prostatic artery embolization for patients with acute urinary retention caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To show that prostatic artery embolization (PAE) improves quality of life (QoL) and lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with acute urinary retention caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study of PAE in 11 patients with BPH managed with indwelling urinary catheters. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), ultrasound, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, QoL, and urodynamic tests were used to assess outcomes. Prostate size ranged from 30 to 90 g, and embolizations were performed with 300-500-µm Embosphere microspheres. RESULTS: The rate of technical success (ie, bilateral PAE) was 75%, and the rate of clinical success (ie, catheter removal and symptom improvement) was 91% (10 of 11 patients). Postembolization syndrome manifested as mild pain in the perineum, retropubic area, and/or urethra. Ten of 11 patients urinated spontaneously after Foley catheter removal 4-25 days after PAE (mean, 12.1 d). No major complications were observed. Follow-up ranged from 19 to 48 months. In an asymptomatic patient, a discrete area of hypoperfusion suggesting small ischemia of the bladder was observed on 30-day MR imaging follow-up, but the bladder was normal on 90-day MR imaging. After 1 year, mean prostate volume reduction was greater than 30%, symptoms were mild (mean IPSS, 2.8 ± 2.1; P = .04), no erectile dysfunction was observed, and QoL improved significantly (mean, 0.4 ± 0.5; P = .001) using the paired t test. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe symptoms and acute urinary retention caused by BPH can be treated safely by PAE, which improves clinical symptoms and QoL.