Follow-up of Temporary Implantable Nitinol Device (TIND) Implantation for the Treatment of BPH: a Systematic Review

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

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.

Urinary and sexual function after treatment with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 6-month interim results of the MT-06-study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the functional outcomes as they relate to the preservation of urinary continence and sexual function after treatment with the temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd, Israel); a novel minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

Men with symptomatic BPH (IPSS ≥ 10, Q_max < 12 ml/s, and prostate volume (PV) < 120 ml) were invited to participate in this single-arm, prospective multicenter study (MT06). Patients were not washed out of BPH medications before the procedure. The iTind was implanted through a 22F rigid cystoscope under intravenous sedation and was removed 5-7 days later through a 22F Foley catheter under local anesthesia. Post-operative VAS and complications (Clavien Dindo-Grading System) were recorded. Preservation of urinary continence and erectile and ejaculatory function were assessed according to ISI, MSHQ-EjD and SHIM questionnaires. Post-operative IPSS, QoL, Q_max and PVR were also assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

This interim report includes data out to 6 months on the first 70 patients enrolled in the study. The median age was 62.31 years, and the mean prostate volume was 37.68 ml (15-80 ml). Baseline and follow-up data are reported in Table 1. No intraoperative complications were observed, the average post-operative VAS score was 3.24 ± 2.56. On average patients returned to daily life after 4.3 days following the retrieval procedure. Sexual function and urinary continence were preserved in all subjects according to the ISI, SHIM and MSHQ-EjD questionnaires and significant improvements (p < 0.0001) from baseline levels were recorded in IPSS, QoL and peak flow.

CONCLUSION

iTind is a well-tolerated, minimally invasive treatment for BPH-related LUTS which preserves sexual function and urinary continence, offers a rapid recovery and return to daily life, and a significant improvement of symptoms and urinary flow at 6-month follow-up.

iTIND: the second-generation temporary implantable nitinol device for minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

iTIND is the second-generation version of the temporary nitinol implantable device (TIND), which has emerged over the past decade as one of the latest additions to the library of minimally invasive surgeries now available to treat bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostate enlargement. While the key procedural steps remain the same, it now carries specific modifications designed to improve its efficacy and safety profile further. With the option to perform implantation under local anaesthesia, it can be delivered on an ambulatory basis and in the office setting. While the formal position of iTIND in current guidelines is yet to be determined, 12-month data demonstrates that it can improve both objective and subjective outcome measures, which are sustained at short-term follow up.