Angiographic Findings during Repeat Prostatic Artery Embolization

PurposeTo describe mechanisms of prostate revascularization based on imaging findings during repeat prostatic artery embolization (PAE; rPAE).Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of 10 rPAEs performed between October 2012 and September 2018 in patients with recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after PAE (mean age, 68.2 y ± 4.5). Two interventional radiologists reviewed PAE and rPAE images and defined 6 patterns of revascularization. Correlation between embolization of the posterolateral (PL) prostatic branch during previous PAE and prostate revascularization on rPAE was assessed by Fisher exact test. One hemiprostate was excluded because no detectable revascularization was observed.ResultsAll patients showed LUTS improvement after previous PAEs (P < .01 for 5 outcome measures) and had recurrence during follow-up. rPAEs were performed a mean of 40.9 months after previous PAEs (18–96 mo). Of 19 hemiprostates analyzed, 11 presented revascularization by 2 or more branches (57.9%). The PL branch (29.0%) and the recanalized main prostatic artery (25.8%) were the most frequent revascularizing branches observed, followed by distal branches of obturator (12.9%), internal pudendal (12.9%), superior vesical (12.9%), and contralateral arteries (6.5%). Embolization of the PL branch during previous PAE significantly reduced the incidence of revascularization by this branch (P = .002).ConclusionsMechanisms of revascularization in rPAE are diverse and complex. Revascularization by the PL branch and recanalization of the previously embolized prostatic artery were the most frequent patterns observed. Embolization of the PL branch may reduce the incidence of prostate revascularization and LUTS recurrence after PAE.     

Utility of Cone-Beam CT Imaging in Prostatic Artery Embolization

PurposeTo evaluate the utility of cone-beam computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing prostatic artery (PA) embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsFrom January 2012 to January 2013, 15 patients (age range, 59–81 y; mean, 68 y) with moderate- or severe-grade lower urinary tract symptoms, in whom medical management had failed were enrolled in a prospective United States trial to evaluate PAE. During pelvic angiography, 15 cone-beam CT acquisitions were performed in 11 patients, and digital subtraction angiography was performed in all patients. Cone-beam CT images were reviewed to assess for sites of potential nontarget embolization that impacted therapy, a pattern of enhancement on cone-beam CT suggesting additional PAs, confirmation of prostatic parenchymal perfusion before embolization, and contralateral prostatic parenchymal enhancement.ResultsCone-beam CT was successful in 14 of 15 acquisitions, and PAE was successful in 14 of 15 patients (92%). Cone-beam CT provided information that impacted treatment in five of 11 patients (46%) by allowing for identification of sites of potential nontarget embolization. Duplicated prostatic arterial supply and contralateral perfusion were each identified in 21% of patients (three of 11). Prostatic perfusion was confirmed before embolization in 50% of acquisitions (seven of 14).ConclusionsCone-beam CT is a useful technique that can potentially mitigate the risk of nontarget embolization. During treatment, it can allow for the interventionalist to identify duplicated prostatic arterial supply or contralateral perfusion, which may be useful when evaluating a treatment failure.     

Intra-vesical Prostatic Protrusion (IPP) Can Be Reduced by Prostatic Artery Embolization

Background

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a new approach to improve lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. PAE results in global reduction of prostate volume (PV). There are no data available on the efficacy of PAE in reducing intra-vesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), an anatomic feature that is clinically related with bladder outlet obstruction and LUTS.

Objective

To assess the results of PAE in patients with significant IPP due to median lobe hyperplasia and to compare the IPSS decrease and IPP change.

Material and Methods

Prospective analysis of 18 consecutive patients with significant IPP (>5 mm) related to median lobe hyperplasia undergoing PAE using 30–500-μm-calibrated trisacryl microspheres. We measured IPP on sagittal T2-weighted images before and 3 months after PAE. IPSS and clinical results were also evaluated at 3 months.

Results

PAE resulted in significant IPP reduction (1.57 cm ± 0.55 before PAE and 1.30 cm ± 0.46 after PAE, p = 0.0005) (Fig. 1) with no complication. IPSS, quality of life (QoL), total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and PV showed significant reduction after PAE, and maximum urinary flow rate (Q _max) showed significant increase after PAE. No significant change of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) for clinical evaluation after PAE. A significant correlation was found between the IPP change and the IPSS change (r = 0.636, p = 0.0045).

Conclusion

Patients had significant IPP reduction as well as significant symptomatic improvement after PAE, and these improvements were positively correlated.

     

Prostatic Artery Embolization as a Primary Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Preliminary Results in Two Patients

Symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) typically occurs in the sixth and seventh decades, and the most frequent obstructive urinary symptoms are hesitancy, decreased urinary stream, sensation of incomplete emptying, nocturia, frequency, and urgency. Various medications, specifically 5-α-reductase inhibitors and selective α-blockers, can decrease the severity of the symptoms secondary to BPH, but prostatectomy is still considered to be the traditional method of management. We report the preliminary results for two patients with acute urinary retention due to BPH, successfully treated by prostate artery embolization (PAE). The patients were investigated using the International Prostate Symptom Score, by digital rectal examination, urodynamic testing, prostate biopsy, transrectal ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Uroflowmetry and postvoid residual urine volume complemented the investigation at 30, 90, and 180 days after PAE. The procedure was performed under local anesthesia; embolization of the prostate arteries was performed with a microcatheter and 300- to 500-μm microspheres using complete stasis as the end point. One patient was subjected to bilateral PAE and the other to unilateral PAE; they urinated spontaneously after removal of the urethral catheter, 15 and 10 days after the procedure, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, US and MRI revealed a prostate reduction of 39.7% and 47.8%, respectively, for the bilateral PAE and 25.5 and 27.8%, respectively, for the patient submitted to unilateral PAE. The early results, at 6-month follow-up, for the two patients with BPH show a promising potential alternative for treatment with PAE.     

Transient Ischemic Rectitis as a Potential Complication after Prostatic Artery Embolization: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an alternative treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Complications are primarily related to non-target embolization. We report a case of ischemic rectitis in a 76-year-old man with significant lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia, probably related to nontarget embolization. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed an 85.5-g prostate and urodynamic studies confirmed Inferior vesical obstruction. PAE was performed bilaterally. During the first 3 days of follow-up, a small amount of blood mixed in the stool was observed. Colonoscopy identified rectal ulcers at day 4, which had then disappeared by day 16 post PAE without treatment. PAE is a safe, effective procedure with a low complication rate, but interventionalists should be aware of the risk of rectal nontarget embolization.     

Randomized Comparison of Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PurposeTo compare clinical and functional outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with those of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Materials and MethodsNoninferiority randomized trial was conducted involving men over 60 years of age with LUTS secondary to BPH. From November 2014 to January 2017, 45 patients were randomized to PAE (n = 23) or to TURP (n = 22). PAE was performed with 300- to 500-μm microspheres with the patient under local anesthesia, whereas bipolar TURP was performed with the patients under spinal or general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were changes in peak urinary flow (Q_max) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 months. Quality of life (QoL), and prostate volume (PV) changes from baseline to 12 month were secondary outcomes. Adverse events were compared using the Clavien classification.ResultsMean Q_max increased from 6.1 mL/s in the PAE group and from 9.6 mL/s in the TURP patients (P = .862 for noninferiority), and mean IPSS reduction was 21.0 points for PAE and 18.2 points for TURP subjects (P = .080) at 12 months. A greater QoL improvement was reported in the PAE group (3.78 points for PAE and 3.09 points for TURP; P = .002). Mean PV reduction was 20.5 cm³ (34.2%) for PAE subjects and 44.7 cm³ (71.2%) for TURP subjects (P < .001). There were fewer adverse events reported in the PAE group than in the TURP group (n = 15 vs n = 47; P < .001).ConclusionsReduction of LUTS in the PAE group was similar to that in the TURP group at 12 months, with fewer complications secondary to PAE. Long-term follow-up is needed to compare the durability of the symptomatic improvement from each procedure.     

Impact of 5-Alpha-Reductase Inhibitors Use at the Time of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction

Purpose

To compare the 12-month post-prostatic artery embolization (PAE) clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not taking 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) at the time of PAE.

Prostatic Arterial Embolization for Control of Hematuria in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer

Nine patients with advanced prostate cancer (stage T4) underwent prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) for refractory prostatic hematuria. Angiograms showed prostatic neovascularity in all cases, and complete PAE was achieved in 8 cases (89% technical success rate). Gross hematuria ceased after PAE in 6 cases, translating to a 67% clinical success rate. There were no PAE-related complications. At 3-month follow-up, 2 cases showed recurrent hematuria, 4 patients had died from PAE-unrelated etiologies, and only 3 patients survived and were without gross hematuria. PAE could represent an alternative option for patients with advanced prostate cancer to control hematuria.     

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Enlarged Prostates Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. How I Do It

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as an alternative to surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Patient selection and refined technique are essential for good results. Urodynamic evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging are very important and technical limitations are related to elderly patients with tortuous and atherosclerotic vessels, anatomical variations, difficulty visualizing and catheterizing small diameter arteries feeding the prostate, and the potential risk of bladder and rectum ischemia. The use of small-diameter hydrophilic microcatheters is mandatory. Patients can be treated safely by PAE with low rates of side effects, reducing prostate volume with clinical symptoms and quality of life improvement without urinary incontinence, ejaculatory disorders, or erectile dysfunction. A multidisciplinary approach with urologists and interventional radiologists is essential to achieve better results.     

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Prostatic Artery Embolization to Gold-Standard Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology - To report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)...     

Role of Ultrasound Elastography in Patient Selection for Prostatic Artery Embolization

PurposeTo determine the effects of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on prostate elasticity as assessed using ultrasound elastography (US-E) and to describe baseline US-E's potential role in patient selection.Materials and MethodsThis was a prospective investigation that included 20 patients undergoing PAE to treat lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). US-E with measurement of the prostatic elastic modulus (EM) and shear wave velocity (SWV) was performed before PAE and at 1-month follow-up. Baseline, 3-month, and 1-year follow-up evaluations included prostate-specific antigen, uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) metrics.ResultsSeventeen patients entered statistical analysis. US-E showed a significant reduction in mean prostatic EM (34.4 kPa vs 46.3 kPa, −24.7%, P < .0001) and SWV (3.55 m/s vs 4.46 m/s, −20.0%, P < .0001) after PAE. There were moderate positive correlations between baseline EM and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.62, P = .007) and between baseline SWV and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.68, P = .002). Baseline SWV ≥ 5.59 m/s and baseline EM ≥ 50.14 kPa were associated with suboptimal IPSS and QoL outcomes after PAE with high degrees of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (69-100%).ConclusionsPAE led to a positive effect on the BPH dynamic component related to prostatic elasticity. There was a moderate positive correlation between baseline prostatic elastographic parameters and 12-month IPSS. Measurement of baseline elastographic characteristics may become useful for the evaluation and selection of patients for PAE.     

Prostatic Artery Embolization as an Alternative to Indwelling Bladder Catheterization to Manage Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Poor Surgical Candidates

To prospectively assess discontinuation of indwelling bladder catheterization (IBC) and relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) following prostate artery embolization (PAE) in poor surgical candidates. Patients ineligible for surgical intervention were offered PAE after at least 1 month of IBC for management of urinary retention secondary to BPH; exclusion criteria for PAE included eligibility for surgery, active bladder cancer or known prostate cancer. Embolization technical and clinical success were defined as bilateral prostate embolization and removal of IBC, respectively. Patients were followed for at least 6 months and evaluated for International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, prostate size and uroflowmetric parameters. A total of 43 patients were enrolled; bilateral embolization was performed in 33 (76.7%), unilateral embolization was performed in 8 (18.6%), and two patients could not be embolized due to tortuous and atherosclerotic pelvic vasculature (4.7%). Among the patients who were embolized, mean prostate size decreased from 75.6 ± 33.2 to 63.0 ± 23.2 g (sign rank p = 0.0001, mean reduction of 19.6 ± 17.3%), and IBC removal was achieved in 33 patients (80.5%). Clavien II complications were reported in nine patients (21.9%) and included urinary tract infection (three patients, 7.3%) and recurrent acute urinary retention (six patients, 14.6%). Nine patients (22.0%) experienced post-embolization syndrome. PAE is a safe and feasible for the relief of LUTS and IBC in highly comorbid patients without surgical treatment options.     

Prostate Artery Embolization for Giant Prostatic Enlargement: Short-Term Efficacy and Safety

Eight patients with giant prostatic enlargement > 200 mL and lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent bilateral prostatic artery embolization (PAE) were reviewed. Mean prostate volume decreased from 318.2 mL to 212.2 mL (P < .01). At 5-month mean follow-up, International Prostate Symptom Score decreased by 16.7 points (P < .05), and urinary quality of life improved by 3.0 points (P < .01). Three of 4 catheter-dependent patients no longer needed catheterization after the procedure. No major complications were encountered. Preliminary results suggest PAE is safe and effective in patients with giant prostatic enlargement > 200 mL.     

超选择前列腺动脉栓塞术治疗TURP术后复发的前列腺增生的临床疗效

目的超选择前列腺动脉栓塞术（PAE）治疗经尿道前列腺电切（TURP）复发后的前列腺增生的有效性和安全性分析。 方法收集2018年1月—2020年8月经TURP治疗前列腺增生复发后行超选择前列腺动脉栓塞术的患者资料10例。采用Seldinger技术穿刺成功后,将5F的Cobra导管选择至左侧髂内动脉造影,采用同轴微导管技术将1.98F微导管超选择至左侧前列腺动脉造影。采用300~500 μm的栓塞微球对前列腺动脉进行栓塞,同样方法处理右侧前列腺动脉。比较术前和术后3、6、12个月的国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QoL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）和前列腺体积（PV）。 结果10例患者均成功行双侧前列腺动脉栓塞术,技术成功率100%。术后3、6、12个月的IPSS、QoL、Qmax和PV与术前比较,差别均具有统计学意义（P < 0.001）。术后4例出现了会阴部灼烧感,2例患者出现会阴部疼痛,所有的并发症在发生后1周内消失,无严重的并发症发生。 结论对于TURP复发后的良性前列腺增生的患者,PAE能明显改善IPSS、QoL、Qmax和PV,疗效明确,并且安全性好。     

The Role of Accessory Obturator Arteries in Prostatic Arterial Embolization

In 9 of 491 patients (1.8%) who underwent prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia from March 2009–November 2013, prostatic arteries arose from the external iliac artery via an accessory obturator artery (AOA). Computed tomography angiography performed before the procedure identified the variant and allowed planning before the procedure. The nine AOAs were catheterized from a contralateral femoral approach. Bilateral PAE was technically successful in the nine patients. There was a mean decrease in international prostate symptom score of 6.5 points and a mean prostate volume reduction of 15.1% (mean follow-up, 4.8 mo) in the nine patients.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of Balloon Occlusion versus Conventional Microcatheter Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PurposeTo compare balloon occlusion prostatic artery embolization (bPAE) with conventional microcatheter PAE (cPAE).Materials and MethodsIn this single-center trial, between November 2017 and November 2018, 89 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomly assigned to cPAE (n = 43) or bPAE (n = 46). All patients received embolization with 300–500 μm Embosphere microspheres and were evaluated before and 1 and 6 months after PAE. Primary outcome measure was change from baseline in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Student t test was used for between-group comparisons of change from baseline, and paired t test was used for within-group comparisons.ResultsAt baseline, groups were identical (P > .05). Unilateral PAE was performed in 4 patients receiving cPAE and 3 patients receiving bPAE (9.30% and 6.52%, P = .708). Procedural and fluoroscopy times, dose area product, air kerma, embolic volume, and mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 24 hours after PAE did not differ between groups (P > .05). Coils were used in 6 patients receiving cPAE and 4 patients receiving bPAE (14.0% and 8.70%, P = .51). Assessments at 6 months after PAE showed mean IPSS reduction was 7.58 ± 6.88 after cPAE and 8.30 ± 8.12 after bPAE (P = .65); mean prostate volume reduction was 21.9 cm³ ± 51.6 (18.2%) after cPAE and 6.15 cm³ ± 14.6 (7.3%) after bPAE (P = .05); mean PSA reduction was 0.9 ng/mL ± 2.22 after cPAE and 0.22 ng/mL ± 1.65 after bPAE (P = .10). Penile skin lesions (n = 3) and rectal bleeding (n = 2) were documented only in patients receiving cPAE (11.9%, P = .01). No major adverse events occurred.ConclusionsbPAE is as effective as cPAE in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia with a potential to reduce nontarget embolization.     

Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PurposeTo review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.Materials and MethodsA literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: International prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and postvoid residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.ResultsThere was no significant difference in outcomes between therapies for IPSS at the 3, 6, and 12-month follow ups. Although outcomes for Rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation versus PAE versus Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major adverse events were noted.ConclusionAlthough significant differences in outcomes were limited, Aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while Aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.     

Initial Experience with Balloon-Occlusion Prostatic Artery Embolization

Twelve patients underwent balloon-occlusion prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at a single center. Bilateral prostatic artery catheterization was achieved in all patients, but unilateral embolization was performed in 1 patient as a result of the presence of a prostatic arteriovenous fistula. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score and quality-of-life score decreased by 15 ± 7 (P < .01) and 4 ± 1 (P < .01) points, respectively, over a mean follow-up period of 22 weeks ± 8. Only self-limiting minor complications were encountered. The initial experience with balloon-occlusion PAE suggests that it is technically feasible and can be performed safely.     

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Bleomycin-Eluting versus Bland Microspheres in a Canine Model

PurposeTo prospectively assess safety and efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with bleomycin-eluting microspheres for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a canine model.Materials and MethodsTwelve adult male beagles (mean age, 1.6 y ± 0.2; range, 1.2–2.0 y) were randomly assigned to group A (n = 6; PAE with bleomycin-eluting 30–60-μm HepaSphere microspheres) and group B (n = 6; PAE with bland 30–60-μm HepaSphere microspheres) between April 2017 and November 2018. Plasma bleomycin concentration in group A was measured within 7 days. Prostate volume (PV) and ischemic volume after PAE were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Prostates and adjacent organs were harvested after the last magnetic resonance study and histopathologically examined.ResultsPlasma bleomycin concentration peaked at 10 minutes at 2,055.0 ng/mL ± 606.1 and lasted for 1,440 min at low levels after PAE. PV reduction percentage was greater in group A than in group B at 1 month (74.1% ± 4.3 vs 63.7% ± 3.5; P = .006) and 3 months (61.5% ± 6.7 vs 46.1% ± 3.8; P = .001) after PAE. Proportion of prostate ischemic volume was greater in group A than in group B (75.3% ± 3.0 vs 62.0% ± 7.1; P = .006) at 1 month after PAE. Proportion of prostate ischemic volume at 1 month positively correlated with PV percentage reduction at 3 months in group A (r = 0.840, P = .036) and group B (r = 0.844, P = .035). There were no complications or nontarget embolization to surrounding organs after the procedures.ConclusionsIn a canine model, PAE with bleomycin-eluting microspheres was feasible and well tolerated and caused ischemic necrosis and reduction in PV.     

Prostatic Artery Embolization to Achieve Freedom from Catheterization in Patients with Acute Urinary Retention Caused by Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PurposeTo determine the ability of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) to achieve freedom from catheterization in patients with acute urinary retention (AUR) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Materials and MethodsThis retrospective single-center study was performed between June 2014 and March 2019 in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by BPH. PAE was performed in 154 eligible patients, of which 76 suffered from spontaneous AUR and had indwelling catheters placed and kept until the procedure, owing to clinical failure in the removal of the previous intermittent catheter. Each patient was followed for at least 12 months. The first trial without catheter was performed 3 days after PAE. Successful catheter removal within the first 30 days after PAE was considered a clinical success. The rate of patients free from catheterization, LUTS relief, prostate volume, and adverse events was recorded.ResultsClinical success was achieved in 70 (92.1%) patients. The rates of freedom from catheterization were 90.3% (65/72), 83.3% (60/72), and 80.6% (58/72) at 3-, 6-, and 12-months follow-up, respectively. The median elapsed time from PAE to catheter removal was 10 days. However, 18 patients needed further interventions. Symptom scores revealed a continuous improvement in urinary symptoms. The mean prostate volume showed a statistically significant decrease at 3 and 12 months compared with its baseline value. No severe adverse events occurred.ConclusionsPAE can achieve freedom from catheterization in patients with AUR caused by BPH.