Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T09:43:06.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PP69 Prostatic Artery Embolisation For Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2019

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) was introduced in the 1970s to control major bleeding after prostate surgery. The procedure was noticed to improve the lower urinary tract symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and in 2010, PAE was first investigated as an alternative treatment for BPH. A rapid health technology assessment (HTA) was carried out to inform our hospital's decision on introducing this procedure.

Methods:

The rapid HTA investigated the safety and clinical effectiveness of PAE for patients with BPH. The PICO elements were: Population- Patients with symptomatic BPH; Intervention- PAE; Comparator- Conventional management; Outcomes- Adverse effects, clinical outcomes. The NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed (MEDLINE) were searched for systematic reviews and HTA reports.

Results:

Eight systematic reviews from the most recent two years were found. The primary evidence base consists of two randomized controlled studies of PAE versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), one matched pair analysis of PAE versus open prostatectomy in patients with large prostates, and several non-comparative studies. The comparative studies showed patients had better International Prostate Symptom score, quality of life and reduced prostate volume with TURP and open prostatectomy from 1 to 24 months. With respect to adverse events, embolized patients had more adverse events than controls, particularly acute urinary retention and post-embolization syndrome. However, controls had more abnormal ejaculation; and adverse effects from surgery naturally only occurred in controls.

Conclusions:

PAE appears to be a promising technology lacking long term outcomes. It has potential for patients who are not fit or not keen on surgery, or who may have large prostates, but who are still vascularly suitable for embolization. It would be suitable to carry out under clinical research conditions to clarify the incremental benefits of the technology and which patient groups are best served by the procedure.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018