Comparative Study Using 100–300 Versus 300–500 μm Microspheres for Symptomatic Patients Due to Enlarged-BPH Prostates
- 636 Downloads
The purpose of the study was to compare safety and efficacy outcomes following prostate artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with 100–300 versus 300–500 μm tris-acryl gelatin microspheres.
Materials and Methods
Patients were prospectively treated between August 2011 and June 2013 to receive PAE with 100–300 μm (group A) or 300–500 μm (group B) tris-acryl gelatin microspheres. Patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months and were assessed for changes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) index, prostate volume determined by magnetic resonance imaging, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), and maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), as well as any treatment-related adverse events.
Fifteen patients were included in each group, and PAE was technically successful in all cases. Both groups experienced significant improvement in mean IPSS, QoL, prostate volume, PSA, and Qmax (p < 0.05 for all). The differences observed between the two groups included a marginally insignificant more adverse events (p = 0.066) and greater mean serum PSA reduction at 3 months of follow-up (p = 0.056) in group A.
Both 100–300 and 300–500 μm microspheres are safe and effective embolic agents for PAE to treat LUTS-related to BPH. Although functional and imaging outcomes did not differ significantly following use of the two embolic sizes, the greater incidence of adverse events with 100–300 μm microspheres suggests that 300–500 μm embolic materials may be more appropriate.
KeywordsArterial intervention Embolization Embolotherapy Prostate
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bladder outlet obstruction
International Prostate Symptom Score
Lower urinary tract symptoms
Magnetic resonance imaging
Maximum urinary flow rate
Prostatic artery embolization
Quality of life index
Transurethral resection of the prostate
The authors thank Sardis Honoria Harward for her important collaboration.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no financial disclosure.
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the Ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 8.National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health Publication no. 09-5410. Bethesda: NIH; 2009.Google Scholar
- 12.Antunes AA, Carnevale FC, da Motta-Leal-Filho JM, et al. Clinical, laboratorial and urodynamic findings of prostatic artery embolisation for the treatment of urinary retention related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. a prospective singe-center pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:978–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar