Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in catheter-dependent patients with large prostatic (BPH) glands (>90 cc): early intervention essential

Abstract

Background

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is safe and effective at improving lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness of PAE on allowing successful voiding in patients with obstructive BPH (>90 cc) necessitating a urethral catheter for complete urinary retention.

Material and Methods

Ten consecutive patients with urethral catheters for obstructing BPH were included in the prospective study. Prostate arteries were embolized (Embosphere 300–500 um) and they had an attempted trial without catheter (TWOC) at two weeks and then at two-week intervals thereafter, if unsuccessful. They were clinically reviewed; an MRI was performed three and 12 months after PAE. Quality of life (QOL) questionnaires, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were also performed.

Results

All cases were technically successful (100%). Eight patients had their catheters removed by their three-month follow-up (80%). The two cases that failed their TWOC by three months remained with a urethral catheter at 12-month follow-up. Seven of ten patients had their PAE procedure < 3 months following insertion of the urethral catheter and 100% of these had a successful TWOC before their three-month follow-up. Of the three patients that had their urethral catheter inserted > 3 months before their PAE (range 6–24 months), only 1/3 (33%) became catheter-free by 12 months after PAE. There was a dramatic reduction in LUTS and improvements in QOL indices, IPSS, and IIEF. There was no associated sexual dysfunction.

Conclusion

PAE is very successful in allowing spontaneous voiding in men with obstructing BPH requiring a urethral catheter. However, the PAE should be performed as soon as possible after the urethral catheter is inserted. Direct referral from acute urology services or emergency departments once the catheter is inserted are warranted.

Keywords

Prostate artery embolization PAE acute urinary retention AUR lower urinary tract symptoms LUTS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ray

Powell

Speakman

, et al. Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study). BJU Int 2018; 122:270–282.

Tapping CR, Macdonald A, Hadi M, et al. Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) with hematuria in the absence of an upper urinary tract pathology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018;41:1160–1164.

Tapping CR, Little MW, Boardman P. Treatment of haematospermia with prostatic artery embolization (PAE). J Clin Urol 2017;11:68–69.

Cho

Hung

, et al. Prostate artery embolization for complete urinary outflow obstruction due to benign prostatic hypertrophy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017; 40:33–40.

Little MW, Macdonald AC, Boardman P, et al. Effects of Sublingual Glyceryl Trinitrate Administration on the Quality of Preprocedure CT Angiography Performed to Plan Prostate Artery Embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018;29:225–228.

Hacking

Vigneswaran

Maclean

, et al. Technical and imaging outcomes from the UK Registry of Prostate Artery Embolization (UK-ROPE) Study: focusing on predictors of clinical success. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2019. doi: 10.1007/s00270-018-02156-8.

Bagla

Smirniotopoulos

Orlando

, et al. Cost analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017; 40:1694–1697.