Upcoming event
40th Annual EAU Congress
Back

Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial

  • Dominik Abt 1,
  • Gautier Müllhaupt 1,
  • Lukas Hechelhammer 2,
  • Stefan Markart 2,
  • Sabine Güsewell 3,
  • Hans-Peter Schmid 1,
  • Livio Mordasini 1,
  • Daniel S Engeler 1
1 Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland 2 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland 3 Biostatistics, Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283821000920?via%3Dihub

Background

Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under investigation.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of PAE and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of LUTS/BPO at 2 yr of follow-up.
Design, setting, and participants: A randomised, open-label trial was conducted. There were 103 participants aged ≥40 yr with refractory LUTS/BPO.

Intervention

PAE versus TURP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and other questionnaires, functional measures, prostate volume, and adverse events were evaluated. Changes from baseline to 2 yr were tested for differences between the two interventions with standard two-sided tests.

Results and limitation

The mean reduction in IPSS after 2 yr was 9.21 points after PAE and 12.09 points after TURP (difference of 2.88 [95% confidence interval 0.04-5.72]; p = 0.047). Superiority of TURP was also found for most other patient-reported outcomes except for erectile function. PAE was less effective than TURP regarding the improvement of maximum urinary flow rate (3.9 vs 10.23 ml/s, difference of -6.33 [-10.12 to -2.54]; p < 0.001), reduction of postvoid residual urine (62.1 vs 204.0 ml; 141.91 [43.31-240.51]; p = 0.005), and reduction of prostate volume (10.66 vs 30.20 ml; 19.54 [7.70-31.38]; p = 0.005). Adverse events were less frequent after PAE than after TURP (total occurrence n = 43 vs 78, p = 0.005), but the distribution among severity classes was similar. Ten patients (21%) who initially underwent PAE required TURP within 2 yr due to unsatisfying clinical outcomes, which prevented further assessment of their outcomes and, therefore, represents a limitation of the study.

Conclusions

Inferior improvements in LUTS/BPO and a relevant re-treatment rate are found 2 yr after PAE compared with TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP. The disadvantages of PAE regarding functional outcomes should be considered for patient selection and counselling.