CIRSE Standards of Practice on Prostatic Artery Embolisation

Comparing embolic particles for prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

PURPOSE

Compare the safety and efficacy of polyvinyl alcohol particles (PVA) versus trisacryl gelatin microspheres (Embospheres) versus hydrogel microspheres coated with polyzene-F (Embozenes) for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) to treat patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center prospective cohort study from 2019 to 2023, including patients with international prostate symptom score (IPSS) ≥ 15 and/or quality of life score (QoL) ≥ 4. Allocation to embolic agents was performed chronologically: 100-300 µm PVA (n = 53), followed by 300-500 µm Embospheres (n = 50), and finally, 400 µm Embozenes (n = 50). All patients were evaluated at baseline and at 1 and 6 months after PAE with IPSS/QoL; peak urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume, and prostate volume with ultrasound and prostate-specific antigen. Adverse events and the need for prostatic re-interventions were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant baseline differences between the three groups except for patient age (62.5 years PVA; 66.1 years Embospheres and 66.6 years Embozenes; p = 0.019). There were no major adverse events and no differences between groups regarding minor adverse events. All outcome measures improved significantly from baseline, with no significant differences between groups. Mean ± standard deviation IPSS/QoL improvement at 6 months: -10.7 ± 7.9/-2.2 ± 1.7 PVA; -10.4 ± 7.3/-2.0 ± 1.5 Embospheres; -10.4 ± 7.0/-2.2 ± 1.6 Embozenes (p = 0.987). Re-intervention rates after 6 months: 9% (n = 5/53) PVA; 14% (n = 7/50) Embospheres; 8% (n = 4/50) Embozenes (p = 0.591).

CONCLUSIONS

PAE with PVA particles, Embospheres, and Embozenes is equally safe and effective in treating BPH-related lower urinary tract symptoms.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This is the first prospective study showing equivalence between the most frequently used embolic agents for prostatic artery embolization.

KEY POINTS

Different particles can be used interchangeably for prostatic artery embolization. The improvements in measured metrics were the same between groups, with no differences in adverse events. The need for prostatic medication and re-intervention rates were the same at 1 and 6 months after embolization.

Analysis of the efficacy of Prostatic Artery Embolization in the treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to investigate predictors of clinical success of PAE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was used to collect 107 patients [median age 81.0 (73.0,85.0)] with BPH-related LUTS treated with PAE from September 2014 to February 2022 in a hospital. Repeated measurement ANOVA was used to compare the efficacy evaluation indicators at different times before and after PAE. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify potential predictors of PAE clinical success and establish the optimal joint prediction model. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curves of the quantitative predictors and multivariate model prediction probability values significantly correlated with clinical success were plotted.

RESULTS

Of the 107 cases, 103 (96.3%) successfully underwent PAE. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) decreased from a baseline mean of 24.94 to 10.19 (P < 0.05) 3 months after PAE, and the mean IPSS at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months was 10.12, 11.30 and 11.86, respectively, which were statistically significant compared with baseline (P<0.05). Predictors of clinical success were greater prostate volume (> 65 ml, P = 0.018), adenomatous-dominant benign prostatic hyperplasia (AdBPH)(P = 0.030), indwelling catheterization due to urine retention (P = 0.028), and bilateral embolization (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

PAE was able to significantly improve BPH-related LUTS and the outcome indicators remained stable at long-term follow-up. Preoperative urinary retention catheters, AdBPH, larger prostate volume (> 65 ml) and bilateral embolization suggest better clinical efficacy.

Intentionally unilateral prostatic artery embolization: Patient selection, technique and potential benefits

BACKGROUND

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a promising but also technically demanding interventional radiologic treatment for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Many technical challenges in PAE are associated with the complex anatomy of prostatic arteries (PAs) and with the systematic attempts to catheterize the PAs of both pelvic sides. Long procedure times and high radiation doses are often the result of these attempts and are considered significant disadvantages of PAE. The authors hypothesized that, in selected patients, these disadvantages could be mitigated by intentionally embolizing PAs of only one pelvic side.

AIM

To describe the authors' approach for intentionally unilateral PAE (IU-PAE) and its potential benefits.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients treated with IU-PAE during a period of 2 years. IU-PAE was applied in patients with opacification of more than half of the contralateral prostatic lobe after angiography of the ipsilateral PA (subgroup A), or with markedly asymmetric prostatic enlargement, with the dominant prostatic lobe occupying at least two thirds of the entire gland (subgroup B). All patients treated with IU-PAE also fulfilled at least one of the following criteria: Severe tortuosity or severe atheromatosis of the pelvic arteries, non-visualization, or visualization of a tiny (< 1 mm) contralateral PA on preprocedural computed tomographic angiography. Intraprocedural contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (iCEUS) was applied to monitor prostatic infarction. IU-PAE patients were compared to a control group treated with bilateral PAE.

RESULTS

IU-PAE was performed in a total 13 patients (subgroup A, n = 7; subgroup B, n = 6). Dose-area product, fluoroscopy time and operation time in the IU-PAE group (9767.8 μGy∙m2, 30.3 minutes, 64.0 minutes, respectively) were significantly shorter (45.4%, 35.9%, 45.8% respectively, P < 0.01) compared to the control group. Clinical and imaging outcomes did not differ significantly between the IU-PAE group and the control group. In the 2 clinical failures of IU-PAE (both in subgroup A), the extent of prostatic infarction (demonstrated by iCEUS) was significantly smaller compared to the rest of the IU-PAE group.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, IU-PAE is associated with comparable outcomes, but with lower radiation exposure and a shorter procedure compared to bilateral PAE. iCEUS could facilitate patient selection for IU-PAE.

Prostate volume: does it predict patient outcomes following prostate artery embolisation? A retrospective cohort study

Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a minimally invasive procedure commonly performed to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is a validated patient questionnaire quantifying LUTS and is used for patient selection for PAE, but it is largely subjective. Prostate volume is an easily estimated objective parameter across multiple imaging modalities. No strict threshold of prostate volume is established as a selection criterion for PAE, but it is generally accepted that prostate volume should be over 40 to 50 mL.We looked at a sample of 65 cases performed at a large teaching hospital between 2017 and 2019 with a minimum of four years follow up. Embospheres between 100 to 500 microns were injected into the prostatic arteries bilaterally (if technically feasible). A 'bullet shape' model was used to estimate prostatic volume from initial CT. N = 13 had an estimated volume < 51 mL (range 31-50 mL). IPSS before and at 3 months post-procedure were collected.80% of patients indicated a beneficial response to PAE (IPSS improvement > 5). 23% of patients required further PAE procedure or surgery. No major complications were recorded. The mean change in IPSS under 51 mL compared to over 51 mL cohort was 10.2 versus 11 (standard deviation 7.5 versus 7.3) (p = 0.44, 2 tailed Student's T-test).There was no statistically significant difference in the IPSS improvement or outcome of small volume prostates under 51 mL compared to large volume. Our results suggest that prostate volume should not be used to exclude patients for PAE.

Prostate Artery Embolization with 4D-CT

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a technically challenging angiographic therapy that has been shown to have excellent clinical outcomes for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. Although clinical outcomes have been well documented, several questions remain regarding various technical details of the procedure. This article is a brief review of indications and technical parameters of PAE as well as commonly debated topics throughout the literature. Finally, the article serves to report tips and tricks from a high-volume center.

Prostatic artery embolization via inferior epigastric collateral in chronic total occlusion of the anterior division of the left internal iliac artery

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is one of the new treatment therapies for lower urinary tract symptoms in male patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PAE is considered a minimally invasive option besides other famous traditional therapies such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open surgery. Additionally, PAE has a specific advantage in managing the elderly group and underlying health conditions like anticoagulation. In this article, we presented the case of an 83-year-old male patient who has chronic urinary retention due to benign prostatic hyperplasia, left coronary artery stent placement, and long-term anticoagulation. The preinterventional computed tomography angiography showed chronic total occlusion of the anterior division of the left internal iliac artery. Bilateral PAE was performed successfully, and his urinary symptoms were significantly improved. Computed tomography allows for the accurate detection of prostatic anatomy and facilitates planning prostatic artery embolization.

Repeat Prostatic Artery Embolization with the Addition of a Liquid Embolic Agent: Short-term Results

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The long-term effectiveness of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be hampered by the recanalization of the previously embolized prostatic arteries (PA). The use of a liquid embolic agent (LEA) could limit this risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of repeat PAE (rePAE) using a LEA (Squid Peri) coupled with microspheres in patients experiencing recurring symptoms after initial embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included all consecutive patients who underwent rePAE using Squid Peri coupled with microspheres. Angiographic patterns of prostatic revascularization were identified. Outcomes were assessed at the 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life (QoL) score. The primary endpoint was clinical success defined as an IPSS < 18 with > 25% decrease and a QoL score ≤ 3 with ≥ 1 point decrease. Safety was assessed by using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

30 consecutive men (mean age: 67.1 ± 9.5 years) were included. Recanalization of the previously embolized PA was found in 83.3% of patients. Technical success was 93.3%. Median follow-up was 4.9 months [IQR: 3.9 - 9.8]. Clinical success rate was 76.7%, with a mean decrease in IPSS of -9.3 ± 7.3 (p < 0.001) and a median decrease in QoL of -2 [IQR: - 4 - - 1] (p < 0.001). One patient presented with an acute urinary retention requiring readmission (grade IIIa complication).

CONCLUSION

Repeat PAE using Squid Peri coupled with microspheres is safe and effective for patients with recurring symptoms after initial embolization.

Prostate Artery Embolization as Minimally Invasive Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Systematic Review

Background/Objectives: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has a significant impact on the quality of life of symptomatic patients. In patients manifesting lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has become a topic of interest in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze and review techniques and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent endovascular treatment of BPH, with a special focus on the comparison of surgical and endovascular procedures. Methods: Through the major scientific databases, 1225 articles were selected from the initial research utilizing specific keywords and medical subject headings. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for selecting relevant studies for our purposes, the systematic analysis of the literature was conducted on a total of seven articles. Results: We collected data on 718 male patients (408 patients underwent PAE and 310 received TURP). The technical success rate varied from 86% to 100% for TAE and was 100% for TURP. During a 12-month follow-up period, both PAE and TURP were comparable on the reduction in IPSS and QoL questionnaire, while TURP showed significant improvements in Qmax and in the reduction in prostate volume. Length and cost of hospitalization were lower for PAE. Complication and adverse events rates were higher in the TURP group rather than in the PAE group (60.6% vs. 35.5%). Conclusions: Prostatic artery embolization represents an emerging minimally invasive procedure for BPH. According to previously released clinical studies, quality-of-life and urological symptom scores of the PAE group were comparable to those of the TURP group. Our research strengthens the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of PAE as a therapy for LUTS related to BPH.

Multicenter Quantification of Radiation Exposure and Associated Risks for Prostatic Artery Embolization in 1476 Patients

Background Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe, minimally invasive angiographic procedure that effectively treats benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, PAE-related patient radiation exposure and associated risks are not completely understood. Purpose To quantify radiation dose and assess radiation-related adverse events in patients who underwent PAE at multiple centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing PAE for any indication performed by experienced operators at 10 high-volume international centers from January 2014 to May 2021. Patient characteristics, procedural and radiation dose data, and radiation-related adverse events were collected. Procedural radiation effective doses were calculated by multiplying kerma-area product values by an established conversion factor for abdominopelvic fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Relationships between cumulative air kerma (CAK) or effective dose and patient body mass index (BMI), fluoroscopy time, or radiation field area were assessed with linear regression. Differences in radiation dose stemming from radiopaque prostheses or fluoroscopy unit type were assessed using two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results A total of 1476 patients (mean age, 69.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included, of whom 1345 (91.1%) and 131 (8.9%) underwent the procedure with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units, respectively. Median procedure effective dose was 17.8 mSv for fixed interventional units and 12.3 mSv for mobile units. CAK and effective dose both correlated positively with BMI (R2 = 0.15 and 0.17; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (R2 = 0.16 and 0.08; P < .001). No radiation-related 90-day adverse events were reported. Patients with radiopaque implants versus those without implants had higher median CAK (1452 mGy [range, 900-2685 mGy] vs 1177 mGy [range, 700-1959 mGy], respectively; P = .01). Median effective dose was lower for mobile than for fixed interventional systems (12.3 mSv [range, 8.5-22.0 mSv] vs 20.4 mSv [range, 13.8-30.6 mSv], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Patients who underwent PAE performed with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units were exposed to a median effective radiation dose of 17.8 mSv or 12.3 mSv, respectively. No radiation-related adverse events at 90 days were reported. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

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.

A correlation study between prostate necrosis rate calculated by 3D Slicer software and clinical efficacy of prostatic artery embolization, along with an analysis of predictors of clinical success after prostatic artery embolization

PURPOSE

To analyze the correlation between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and the clinical efficacy at 1-year after PAE, and to explore potential predictors of clinical success after PAE for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

The prostate magnetic resonance imaging data at 1-month after PAE were imported into 3D Slicer software for calculating the prostate necrosis rate and thus analyzing the relationship between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE and the efficacy score ratio at 1-year after PAE. The 151 patients with PAE technical success were divided into a clinical success group (n = 126) and a clinical failure group (n = 25). Independent predictors of clinical success after PAE were analyzed by multifactorial logistic regression, and the predictive performance of each factor was evaluated by applying the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

There was a linear negative correlation between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE and the efficacy score ratio at 1-year after surgery (P < 0.001). In the clinical success group, both the initial prostate volume (PV) and the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE were significantly higher than in the clinical failure group (P < 0.001), and acute urinary retention (AUR) and adenomatous-dominant BPH were also associated with clinical success (P < 0.05). Multifactorial logistic regression analysis revealed that larger initial PV, a higher prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after surgery, and AUR were independent predictors of clinical success after PAE. The AUC values for these three indicators and their combination were 0.720, 0.928, 0.599, and 0.951, respectively, in which the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE demonstrating a high predictive value.

CONCLUSION

The higher the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE, the better the clinical efficacy at 1-year after PAE is likely to be, and the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE is expected to become a predictor of clinical success after PAE.

Clinical, Technical, and MRI Features Associated with Patients' Outcome at 3 Months and 2 Years following Prostate Artery Embolization: Is There an Added Value of Radiomics?

Our aim was to investigate which features were associated with clinical successes at short- and mid-terms following prostate artery embolization (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH). All adults treated by PAE for BPH at our referral center between January 2017 and March 2021, with pre-treatment MRI, technical success, and follow-up at 3 months and 2 years were included in this single-center retrospective study. Radiologists reviewed the prostatic protrusion index (PPI), adenomatous dominant BPH (adBPH), and Wasserman classification on pre-treatment MRI. Radiomics analysis was achieved on the transitional zone on pre-treatment T2-weighted imaging (WI) and ADC, and comprised reproducibility assessment, unsupervised classifications, and supervised radiomics scores obtained with cross-validated Elasticnet regressions. Eighty-eight patients were included (median age: 65 years), with 81.8% clinical successes at 3 months and 60.2% at 2 years. No feature was associated with success at 3 months, except the radiomics score trained on T2-WI and ADC (AUROC = 0.694). Regarding success at 2 years, no radiomics approaches provided significant performances; however, Wasserman type-1 and change in international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at 3 months ≤ -35% were associated with success in multivariable analysis (OR = 5.82, p = 0.0296, and OR = 9.04, p = 0.0002). Thus, while radiomics provided limited interest, Wasserman classification and early IPSS changes appeared predictive of mid-term outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift vs prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science from inception to March 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PUL or PAE with either transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham procedures as control interventions. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to pool the data on direct and indirect comparisons between interventions using STATA 14.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 675 participants were included in our network meta-analysis. Quantitative synthesis revealed that TURP was the most efficacious intervention for clinical (International Prostate Symptoms Score and quality of life) and functional outcomes (maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume), and was associated with a lower reintervention rate compared with PAE (risk ratio [RR] 2.08 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 4.51) and PUL (RR 2.33 with 95% CI 0.50 to 10.86), although the difference were not statistically significant. Indirect comparison indicated that PUL and PAE resulted in similar outcomes. PAE was associated with fewer minor adverse events (AEs; RR 0.75 with 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18) and PUL with fewer major AEs (RR 0.72 with 95% CI 0.17 to 3.13) when compared with TURP. Whilst PAE had a better ranking with regard to improvement of most clinical and functional outcomes, PUL was the best ranked procedure regarding erectile function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function 5, but no significant difference was observed.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that PUL and PAE have similar clinical efficacy and safety profiles in the management of LUTS associated with BPH. However, the quality of evidence is relatively low because of the paucity of RCTs available, and results should be interpreted with caution.

Prostate Artery Embolization: Challenges, Tips, Tricks, and Perspectives

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) consists of blocking the arteries supplying the prostate to treat benign prostate hypertrophia (BPH). Its effectiveness on both urinary symptoms and flowmetric parameters has now been amply demonstrated by around a hundred studies, including several randomized trials. The main advantage of this procedure is the very low rate of urinary and sexual sequelae, including ejaculatory, with an excellent tolerance profile. The arterial anatomy is a key element for the realization of PAE. Its knowledge makes it possible to anticipate obstacles and prevent potential complications related to nontarget embolization. Nontarget embolization can occur with a small intraprostatic shunt or reflux and has no consequences except some local inflammation symptoms that resolve in a couple of days. Nevertheless, some situations with large arterial shunts arising from the prostatic artery must be recognized (accessory rectal, bladder, or pudendal branches), and must imperatively be protected before embolization, at the risk of exposing oneself to otherwise ischemic complications that are more severe, such as bladder necrosis and skin or mucosal necrosis. This article offers a step-by-step review of the various anatomical and technical key points to ensure technical and clinical success, while avoiding the occurrence of adverse events.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Technical Pearls

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a condition that primarily affects men between the fourth and seventh decades of life, occurring due to enlargement of the prostate which subsequently causes compression of the prostatic urethra causing chronic obstruction of the urinary outflow tract. BPH can cause significant quality-of-life issues such as urinary hesitancy, intermittency, decreased urinary stream, a sensation of incomplete emptying, dysuria, urinary retention, hematuria, and nocturia. Several medical and surgical treatment modalities are available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and other BPH-related sequela; however, increasingly prostate artery embolization is being utilized in this patient population. Technical demands for this procedure in this population can be significant. This article describes the optimal techniques, tricks, and advanced imaging techniques that can be used to achieve desired technical outcomes.

Long-Term Outcome of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Single-Centre Retrospective Study in 1072 Patients Over a 10-Year Period

PURPOSE

Assess long-term outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single centre retrospective study from 2009-2019 including 1072 patients who received PAE and had available follow-up. Patients were evaluated yearly at 1-10 years post PAE using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL), prostate volume (PV), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual (PVR) volume. The need for prostatic medication, re-intervention rates, repeat PAE and prostatectomy rates were assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared between different embolic agents using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 4.39 ± 2.37 years. At last follow-up visit, mean IPSS and QoL improvements were - 10.14 ± 8.34 (p < .0001) and - 1.87 ± 1.48 (p < .0001) points, mean PV reduction was - 6.82 ± 41.11 cm³ (p = 0.7779), mean PSA reduction was - 1.12 ± 4.60 ng/mL (p = 0.9713), mean Qmax increase was 2.72 ± 6.38 mL/s (p = 0.0005), mean PVR reduction was - 8.35 ± 135.75 mL (p = 0.6786). There were 335 patients (31.3%) needing prostatic medication after PAE. Re-intervention rates were 3.4% at 1 year, 21.1% at 5 years and 58.1% at 10 years. Repeat-PAE rates were 2.3% at 1 year, 9.5% at 5 years and 23.1% at 10 years. Prostatectomy rates were 1.1% at 1 year, 11.6% at 5 years and 35.0% at 10 years. No significant differences were found between polyvinyl alcohol particles, Bead Block, Embospheres and Embozenes.

CONCLUSION

PAE induces durable long-term LUTS relief, with re-intervention rates of 20% in the first 5 years and 30%-60% > 5 years post-PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Single-Centre Retrospective Study Comparing Microspheres Versus n-Butyl Cyanoacrylate

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue (NBCA) versus microspheres for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing PAE from September 2017 to July 2020. Age, medical history, previous treatment, pre- and post-PAE prostatic volumes and International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSSs) were systematically analysed. Procedural duration, dosimetry, immediate and delayed complications were recorded. Patients at the beginning of the study were treated with microspheres and patients at the end of the study with NBCA. The main outcome measures were the absolute and relative changes in IPSS at 3 months. Statistical analyses comprised unpaired t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, Chi-2 tests, uni- and multivariate linear regressions.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included (median age: 65.9 years). Thirty-two patients were treated with microspheres and 30 with NBCA. There were no significant baseline differences between the two groups except for the baseline PSA (P = 0.0251). Average procedural and fluoroscopy times, and radiation exposure were significantly lower in the NBCA group versus the microspheres group (80.7 ± 22.5 versus 112 ± 42.1 min [P = 0.0011], 24.2 ± 9.6 min versus 42.1 ± 20.2 min [P = 0.0001], 12,004.6 ± 6702 uGy.m² versus 25,614.9 ± 15,749.2 uGy.m² [P = 0.0001], respectively). Immediate complications were all minor, and there were no significant differences between the two groups (4/32 [12.5%] with microspheres versus 7/30 [23.3%] with NBCA, P = 0.4335), nor for delayed complications (P = 1). No association was found between the PAE techniques and the absolute change in IPSS at 3 months (-10.2 ± 7.9 with microspheres versus -9.5 ± 7.6 with NBCA, P = 0.7157).

CONCLUSION

PAE using NBCA was safe and effective for symptomatic BPO, with faster procedures, lower radiation exposure and similar safety and efficacy compared to microspheres. Operator learning curve could have biased the procedural times and radiation exposure between groups favouring NBCA.

Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study Evaluating the Benefit of Computed Tomography Angiography Prior to Prostatic Artery Embolization

PURPOSE

To explore whether a computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the pelvis prior to prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a beneficial preprocedural planning tool regarding the technical success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty patients with lower urinary tract symptoms treated with PAE were analyzed retrospectively. Forty of these patients received a CTA of the pelvis prior to the procedure (Group A) and were compared to 40 patients who were treated with PAE without prior CT imaging (Group B). Technical success rate, rate of complications, fluoroscopy time (FT), and mean dose area product (DAP) were assessed and compared. All operators performed at least 50 PAE prior to this study. When needed, cone-beam CT (CBCT) was available during intervention.

RESULTS

Mean age was 68.43 ± 8.30 years in Group A and 70.42 ± 7.11 years in Group B (p = 0.252). Mean body mass index was 26.78 ± 3.73 in Group A and 26.85 ± 3.5 in Group B (p = 0.319). Overall technical success was 96.3%. Bilateral PAE was achieved in 60 patients (75.0%) while unilateral PAE was performed in 17 patients (21.3%). Technical failure (no embolization) occurred in two patients of Group A and one patient of Group B. No statistical significance was seen between groups for technical success rate (p = 1.0). Mean DAP was 10,164 × cm² ± 3944 cGy × cm² in Group A and 10,039 × cm² ± 3761 cGy × cm² in Group B (p = 0.885). Mean FT was 49.27 ± 22.97 min in Group A and 44.32 ± 17.82 min in Group B (p = 0.285). No intervention-related complications during PAE were reported.

CONCLUSION

With experienced interventionalists and CBCT available during PAE, preprocedural CTA has no additional benefit for technical outcome.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia—A Primer for Interventional Radiologists

Male patients over 50 years with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are potential candidates for prostatic artery embolization (PAE). PAE is not a perfect fit for all BPH patients. Careful pre- and postpostprocedural evaluation/consultation with correct selection of patients should be tailored on an individual basis. Evaluated parameters include the following: LUTS severity quantification with validated questionnaires as the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL), erectile and ejaculatory evaluation with validated questionnaires, blood tests including full blood count, coagulation profile, renal function and total/free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume measured by multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMR) of the prostate and/or transrectal ultrasound, uroflowmetry measuring the peak urinary flowrate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine (PVR). Correct arterial anatomy identification with either computed tomography (CT) angiography, MR angiography, or intraprocedural cone-beam CT (CBCT) are suggested for a confident procedure and avoiding potential complications. The minimally invasive nature of PAE with a faster recovery, preserving the sexual function, and comparable results to standard prostatic surgery make the procedure an attractive choice for many male patients suffering with this condition. Patients should be informed about the potential for higher retreatment rates and shorter duration of treatment effect when compared with standard prostatic surgery. In this comprehensive review, we provide an updated toolbox for all interventional radiologists interested in the PAE practice for patients with BPH. We explain how to evaluate patients during consultation before and after PAE, describe the preprocedural imaging required, explain the technique, and narrate how to optimize outcomes. Finally, we review the level of evidence of PAE for BPH.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms via Transradial Versus Transfemoral Artery Access: Single-Center Technical Outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 53 consecutive men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) who underwent PAE between September 2018 and September 2021. Thirty-one patients (mean age ± standard deviation: 70.6 ± 8.4 years) were treated with TFA, including 14 patients treated before adopting TRA. Since December 2019, TRA has also been attempted with the procedure’s selection criteria of patent carpal circulation and a height ≤ 172 cm, with 22 patients treated via TRA (69.1 ± 9.6 years). Parameters of technical success (defined as successful bilateral embolization), clinical success (defined as LUTS improvement), procedural time, radiation dose, and adverse events were compared between the two groups using the Fisher’s exact test, independent sample t test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or Mann-Whitney test.

Results

All patients received at least one-side PAE. Technical success of PAE was achieved in most patients (TRA, 21/22; TFA, 30/31; p > 0.999). No technical problem-related conversion from TRA to TFA occurred. The clinical success rate was 85% (11/13) in patients with TRA, and 89% (16/18) in patients with TFA for follow-up > 2 weeks post-PAE (median, 3 months) (p > 0.999). The median procedure time was similar in both groups (TRA, 81 minutes vs. TFA, 94 minutes; p = 0.570). No significant dose differences were found between the TRA and TFA groups in the dose-area product (median Gycm², 95 [range, 44–255] for TRA and 84 [34–255] for TFA; p = 0.678) or cumulative air kerma (median mGy, 609 [236–1584] for TRA and 634 [217–1594] for TFA; p = 0.551). No major adverse events occurred in either of the groups.

Conclusion

PAE via TRA is a safe and feasible method comparable to conventional TFA. It can be safely implemented by selecting patients with patent carpal circulation and adequate height.

Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) Using Polyethylene Glycol Microspheres: Safety and Efficacy in 81 Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) using polyethylene glycol microspheres (PEGM) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentric prospective study enrolled 81 patients who underwent PAE with 400 ± 75 µm PEGM (HydroPearl®, Terumo, Japan). Results from baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups were assessed for subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), Quality of life (QoL), and International Index of Erectile Function, and objective outcomes such as peak urinary flow (Qmax) and post-void residual volume (PVR). The visual analogue scale, satisfaction questionnaire, prostatic volume, and prostatic specific antigen levels were also evaluated. Complications were documented using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Technical success was obtained in all patients. Clinical success was achieved in 78.5% of patients. Before PAE, 54.3% of patients had an indwelling catheter which was removed in 75% of them after procedure. A statistically significant decrease was observed in IPSS and QoL from baseline to 12 months (20.14 vs 5.89; 4.8 vs 0.63, P < .01), respectively. Objective outcomes also showed a statistically significant improvement in Qmax (+ 114.9%; P < .01), achieving a maximum urinary flow of 14.2 mL/sec, and PVR (decrease 58%; P < .05) at 12 months. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II) occurred in 13.6% of patients, without major complications observed.

CONCLUSION

PAE with PEGM is safe and effective treatment in patients with symptomatic BPH, with a significant improvement in both subjective and objective outcomes.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Indications, Preparation, Techniques, Imaging Evaluation, Reporting, and Complications

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous growth of the transitional zone of the prostate, which surrounds the prostatic urethra. Consequently, it can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and bladder outlet obstruction symptoms that may substantially reduce a patient's quality of life. Several treatments are available for BPH, including medications such as α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors and surgical options including transurethral resection of the prostate and prostatectomy. Recently, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option for selected men with BPH and moderate to severe LUTS. Adequate pre- and postprocedural evaluations with clinical examinations and questionnaires, laboratory tests, and urodynamic and imaging examinations (particularly US, MRI, and CT) are of key importance to achieve successful treatment. Considering that the use of PAE has been increasing in tertiary hospital facilities, radiologists and interventional radiologists should be aware of the main technical concepts of PAE and the key features to address in imaging reports in pre- and postprocedural settings. An invited commentary by Lopera is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Advanced image guidance for prostatic artery embolization - a multicenter technical note

BACKGROUND

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is associated with patients' quality of life improvements and limited side effects compared to surgery. However, this procedure remains technically challenging due to complex vasculature, anatomical variations and small arteries, inducing long procedure times and high radiation exposure levels both to patients and medical staff. Moreover, the risk of non-target embolization can lead to relevant complications. In this context, advanced imaging can constitute a solid ally to address these challenges and deliver good clinical outcomes at acceptable radiation levels.

MAIN TEXT

This technical note aims to share the consolidated experience of four institutions detailing their optimized workflow using advanced image guidance, discussing variants, and sharing their best practices to reach a consensus standardized imaging workflow for PAE procedure, as well as pre and post-operative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

This technical note puts forth a consensus optimized imaging workflow and best practices, with the hope of helping drive adoption of the procedure, deliver good clinical outcomes, and minimize radiation dose levels and contrast media injections while making PAE procedures shorter and safer.

Using prostate contrast retention (PCR) as the procedural endpoint in prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

The failure rate following prostate artery embolization (PAE) is around 20%, which may in part result from inadequate embolization. Prostate contrast retention (PCR) adequacy on immediate post-embolization cone-beam CT may provide better assessment of embolization completeness than arterial contrast stasis seen on fluoroscopy alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of PAE using PCR adequacy as the procedural endpoint.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all PAE cases using this technique at a single large volume center was conducted. Following initial embolization of the main prostatic arteries, if PCR was inadequate, additional embolization was performed. Technical success (adequate PCR) was defined as > 75% global prostate gland contrast staining. Clinical success was determined in accordance to CIRSE standards of practice.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five patients (mean age 68 ± 8.4 years) underwent PAE from June 2017 to March 2019. Technical and clinical success rates were 98.8% and 96.4% respectively. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients with adequate PCR. International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL) scores significantly improved at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up when compared to baseline. Prostate volume (PV) and post-voiding residual bladder volume were significantly reduced at 3, 6, and 12 months in comparison to baseline. Mild (Clavien-Dindo grade I/II) and moderate (grade III) complication rates were 12.1% and 3.6% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By using PCR adequacy as a guide to determine the procedure endpoint for PAE, it may be possible to achieve more complete embolization and thus higher clinical success rates.

KEY POINTS

• By using PCR adequacy as a guide to determine the procedure endpoint for PAE, it may be possible to achieve more complete embolization and thus higher clinical success rates.

Limiting radiation exposure during prostatic arteries embolization: influence of patient characteristics, anatomical conditions, and technical factors

OBJECTIVE

To assess the influence of patient characteristics, anatomical conditions, and technical factors on radiation exposure during prostatic arteries embolization (PAE) performed for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient characteristics (age, body mass index (BMI)), anatomical conditions (number of prostatic arteries, anastomosis), and technical factors (use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), large display monitor (LDM), and magnification) were recorded as well as total air kerma (AK), dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time (FT), and number of acquisitions (NAcq). Associations between potential dose-influencing factors and AK using univariate analysis and a multiple linear regression model were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-one consecutive men (68 ± 8 years, min-max: 40-76) were included. LDM and CBCT decreased the use of small field of view with 13.9 and 3.8% respectively, both p < 0.001. The use of a LDM significantly reduced AK (1006.6 ± 471.7 vs. 1412 ± 754.6 mGy, p = 0.02), DAP (119.4 ± 64.4 vs. 167.9 ± 99.2, p = 0.04), FT (40.4 ± 11.5 vs. 53.6 ± 25.5 min, p = 0.01), and NAcq (16.3 ± 6.3 vs. 18.2 ± 7, p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, AK reduction was associated with lower patient BMI (β = 0.359, p = 0.002), shorter FT (β = 0.664, p < 0.001) and CBCT use (β = - 0.223, p = 0.03), and decreased NAcq (β = 0.229, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

LDM and CBCT are important technical dose-related factors to help reduce radiation exposure during PAE, and should be considered in standard practice.

KEY POINTS

• The use of large display monitor (LDM) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) both decreased the need for magnification during prostatic arteries embolization (PAE). • The use of LDM reduces radiation exposure during PAE. • Total air kerma is associated with patient's body mass index, fluoroscopy time, CBCT, and the number of acquisitions.

Interventional therapy in benign conditions of the prostate

Interventional therapies (IT) are increasingly popular treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). IT aim to reduce morbidity and side effects related to invasive surgical procedures. To date, IT are considered experimental, though they are evolving rapidly and starting to challenge established surgical strategies. With gradually increasing evidence for the benefits of IT in BPH, several techniques are moving out of the realm of research and into everyday clinical practice. As such, IT provides encouraging mid-term functional outcomes with improved health-related quality of life (QoL), particularly in terms of better preservation of ejaculation. The distinct role IT could play as a bridge between exhausted drug-based treatment options and surgery is yet to be defined. Further studies are required before IT can be recommended as alternatives to invasive therapies. Systematic trials are needed to identify subgroups of patients who can benefit particularly from IT in comparison to other treatments, to identify features of the prostate particularly suited to a specific IT, and to analyze the durability of success for each technique.

[Surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction: Guidelines from the Committee for Male Voiding Disorders of the French Urology Association]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Committee (CTMH) of the French Urology Association was to propose an update of the guidelines for surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

METHODS

All available data published on PubMed® between 2018 and 2020 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing surgical and interventional management of adult patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, conclusions with level of evidence and French guidelines were elaborated in order to answer the predefined clinical questions.

RESULTS/GUIDELINES

Offer a trans-uretral incision of the prostate to treat patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with a prostate volume<30cm³, without a middle lobe. TUIP increases the chances of preserving ejaculation. Propose mono- or bipolar trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS with a prostate volume between 30 and 80cm³. Vaporization by Greenlight™ or by bipolar energy can be offered as an alternative to TURP. Offer a Greenlight™ laser vaporization to patients at risk of bleeding. Offer endoscopic prostate enucleation to surgically treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS as an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy (OP). Minimally invasive prostatectomy is an alternative to OP in centers without access to adequate endoscopic procedures. Embolization of the prostatic arteries may be offered in the event of a contraindication or refusal of surgery for prostates with a volume>80cm³. Prostatic uretral lift is an alternative in patients interested in preserving their ejaculatory function and with a prostate volume<70cm³ without a middle lobe. Aquablation and Rezum™ are under evaluation and should be offered in research protocols.

CONCLUSION

Major changes in surgical management of BPO have occurred and aim at reducing morbidity and improving quality of life of patients.

The STREAM Trial (Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) 24-Month Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

PURPOSE

To establish factors predictive of success prior to Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) with MRI imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study of 50 patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) were treated with PAE in a single institution. Patients had moderate to severe symptoms of BPH refractory to medical management for at least 6 months. Patients were imaged with multiparametric MRI imaging pre-PAE and at 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-PAE. Clinical success was measured with IPSS, IIEF and EQ-5D-5L quality of life questionnaires.

RESULTS

The technical success was 48/50 (96%).The mean age of the group was 67 (range 54-83). The mean IPSS score pre-PAE was 21 and at 24 months was 8 (p < 0.001). There was no deterioration in erectile function. The mean volume of the prostate post-PAE was reduced at 3 and 12 months post-PAE but not significantly different at 24 months. This did not correlate with the IPSS score. Patients with median lobe enlargement has similar symptomatic improvement as those without median lobe enlargement. Internally within the prostate patients with adenomatous-dominant BPH initially did better than patients with stromal enlargement; however, at 24 months patients with stromal enlargement of the prostate improved greatest. Initial volume of the prostate was not a good predictor of clinical success.

CONCLUSION

PAE is a safe and effective treatment strategy for treating men with BPH. Patients with Adenomatous BPH clinically do better until 12 months but not at 24 months. Initial prostate volume does not affect outcome, and patients with median lobe enlargement do as well as those without.

Impact of anatomy type of prostatic artery on the number of catheters needed for prostatic artery embolization

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the number of microcatheters required for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and the anatomy of the prostatic artery (PA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent PAE between May 2017 and December 2018 were included. The anatomical description of the PAs was assessed by both global cone beam computed tomography and selective angiography and data on the resources used, in terms of microcatheters, were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

A total of 215 consecutive patients (mean age, 66±8.7 [SD] years; range: 45-93 years), with a mean International Prostate Symptom Score of 21±7.4 (SD) and a mean prostate volume on magnetic resonance imaging of 88±38 (SD) mL (range: 30-200mL) underwent PAE. A single PA was observed in 347 hemipelvises (347/411; 84.4%) and double PAs in 64 (64/411; 15.6%). Eighty percent (173/215 patients) of PAEs were performed using a single microcatheter. Type I PA anatomy required significantly more microcatheters (1.15±0.39 [SD]; range: 1-3), than type II (1.04±0.19 [SD]; range: 1-2), type III (1.09±0.34 [SD]; range: 1-3) and type IV (1.06±0.27 [SD]; range: 1-2) (P=0.01 for all).

CONCLUSION

PAE is feasible with limited per-intervention changes in devices for all types of PA anatomy encountered. This could help in the design of appropriate reimbursement policies in various healthcare settings.

Patterns of Reperfusion and Clinical Findings in Repeat Prostate Artery Embolisation for Recurrent Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PURPOSE

To present our experience of the patterns of revascularisation of the prostate and efficacy of repeat prostate artery embolisation (rPAE) in patients with recurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 12 patients who underwent rPAE at a single centre between November 2015 and March 2020. The patients had their intraprocedural angiography and cone beam CT images as well as their pre-procedural CT retrospectively reviewed to establish the patterns of revascularisation. Clinical follow-up occurred at a minimum of 3 months.

RESULTS

11/12 patients (91.6%) had significant international prostate symptom score (IPSS) reduction following rPAE with change in mean IPSS from 18.4 to 8.1 at 3 months (p < 0.0001). Mean prostate volume was reduced by 41.6% (p = 0.03). 8/12 (75%) had a complete clinical success. 20/24 hemiprostates demonstrated revascularisation angiographically, of which 16 (80%) had prostatic arterial supply at rPAE by the main prostatic artery. Other mechanisms of revascularisation included supply from capsular prostatic artery branches and supply from other internal iliac pelvic branches. Unilateral embolisation at rPAE, where bilateral embolisation was not feasible (4/12), resulted in no difference in clinical outcomes compared with bilateral rPAE (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

We have found rPAE to be an effective treatment for recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms in patients who had good clinical response to initial PAE. The mechanisms of revascularisation are variable, but most patients that underwent rPAE had recanalisation of their main prostatic artery.