Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a new minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The purpose of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH with LUTS. A systematic review performed according to the PRISMA guidelines with a pre-specified search strategy for PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017059196). Trials studying the efficacy of prostate artery embolisation to treat LUTS with more than ten participants and follow-up longer than 6 months were included by two independent authors. Outcomes investigated were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), prostate volume (PV), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), peak void flow (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR) and complications. To summarise mean change from baseline, a meta-analysis was done using the random-effects model. The search returned 210 references, of which 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 1,254 patients. Patients in the included studies with data available for meta-analysis had moderate to severe LUTS and a mean IPSS of 23.5. Statistically significant (p value < 0.05) improvements of all investigated outcomes were seen at 12-month follow-up. Major complications were reported in 0.3% of the cases. Our findings suggest that PAE can reduce moderate to severe LUTS in men with BPH with a low risk of complications. • Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) improved International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) by 67%. • Major complications after PAE are very rare. • Use of cone-beam CT may reduce risk of non-target embolisation.

Prostate artery embolisation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Society of Interventional Radiology Multisociety Consensus Position Statement on Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: From the Society of Interventional Radiology, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, Société Française de Radiologie, and the British Society of Interventional Radiology

Background Long-term experience with prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia remains limited. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of PAE for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-center study was conducted from June 2008 to June 2018 in patients with moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia-related symptoms. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume were assessed. PAE was performed with 100-500-μm embolic microspheres. Mixed-model analysis of variance and Kaplan-Meyer method was accessed, as appropriate. Results A total of 317 consecutive men (mean age ± standard deviation, 65 years ± 8) were treated. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 96 months (mean, 27 months). Bilateral and unilateral PAE was performed in 298 (94%) and 19 (6%) men, respectively. Early clinical failure occurred in six (1.9%) and symptom recurrence in 72 (23%) men at a median follow-up of 72 months. Mean maximum improvement was as follows: IPSS, 16 points ± 7; quality-of-life score, 4 points ± 1; prostatic volume reduction, 39 cm3 ± 39 (39% ± 29); maximum urinary flow rate, 6 mL/sec ± 10 (155% ± 293); and postvoid residual volume, 70 mL ± 121 (48% ± 81) (P < .05 for all). Unilateral PAE was associated with higher recurrence (42% vs 21%; P = .04). Baseline PSA was inversely related with recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.9 per nanograms per milliliter of PSA; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8, 0.9; P < .001). Embolization with combined particle sizes (100-500 μm) did not relate to symptom recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.1 for 100-500-μm group vs 300-500-μm group and hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.5 for 100-500-μm group vs 100-300-μm group; P = .19).None of the patients presented with urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Conclusion Prostatic artery embolization was a safe and effective procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia with good long-term results for lower urinary tract symptoms. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 10 Years' Experience.

Prostate Artery Embolization in Patients with Prostate Volumes of 80 mL or More: A Single-Institution Retrospective Experience of 93 Patients

Efficacy of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Catheter-Dependent Patients with Large Prostate Sizes and High Comorbidity Scores.

Purpose
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.

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

P.M. Brambillasca

Papers

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