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

Two-Year Outcomes of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An International, Multicenter, Prospective Study

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.

Procedural Feasibility and Peri-procedural Outcomes of Peripheral Endovascular Therapy via Transradial versus Transfemoral Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase.

REVIEW METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume.

RESULTS

Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.

Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access

PURPOSE

To compare prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA-PAE) versus transfemoral access (TFA-PAE) to assist access selection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Procedural outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in 998 patients who underwent PAE at a single center from April 2014 to August 2022; 821 (82%) underwent TRA-PAE (Group R) and 177 (18%) underwent TFA-PAE (Group F). Mean age and prostate size of Groups R and F were 69.2 years (SD ± 8.4) and 117.4 g (SD ± 63.1) and 75.2 years (SD ± 12.1) and 127.2 g (SD ± 83.6), respectively (P < .01 and P = .16; postpropensity matching: P = .38 and P = .35, respectively). Indications for PAE included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute or chronic urinary retention, and hematuria. Procedural and patient-specific metrics were reviewed. Technical success was defined as bilateral PAE. Adverse events were recorded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse events classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 798 (97.2%) patients in Group R and 165 (93.2%) patients in Group F. Mean procedural time, single- and continuous-rotation fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were significantly lower in Group R than in Group F (P < .001). Moreover, 6 (0.7%) patients in Group R and 9 (5.5%) patients in Group F had access site ecchymoses, whereas 5 (0.6%) patients in Group R and 6 (3.6%) in Group F had access site hematomas. Two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) after TRA-PAE and recovered without intervention. Two occult radial artery occlusions were noted, but no patient experienced hand ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large single interventional radiologist cohort, TRA-PAE demonstrated similar technical success to that of TFA-PAE with lower access site hemorrhagic complications and radiation requirements; however, TIA and occult radial artery occlusions remain a concern.

Prostate Artery Embolization in the Treatment of Massive Intractable Bleeding from Prostatic Neoplasms: A Case Report and Systematic Review

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and hematuria are common symptoms in men with neoplasms, mainly affecting the elderly population. Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive procedure that has shown promising results in managing LUTS and massive intractable prostatic hematuria in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa). A few studies, however, have provided valuable insights into the durability and efficacy of PAE focusing on the long-term effectiveness, quality of life, and cancer-specific control of hemostasis and urinary symptoms. As a result of concomitant cardiovascular conditions, these patients often take anticoagulants or antithrombotics, which can worsen their hematuria and clinical status. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered a very high-risk procedure, even without massive bleeding, and requires discontinuation of vitamin K antagonists and antiplatelet therapies. Such patients usually have their surgery postponed, and PAE should be considered a safe alternative treatment. We aimed to report a narrative review from 1976 to June 2023 of the current state of PAE for massive and intractable hematuria, highlighting recent developments in this technique, including prospective cohort studies, and focusing on long-term outcome, safety, and complication management of patients with prostatic neoplasms who develop significant hemorrhagic symptoms. Additionally, we present a case report and a simple algorithm for treating intractable bleeding in a 92-year-old man with PCa and massive hematuria.

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.