Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 11, pp 1694–1697 | Cite as

Cost Analysis of Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

  • Sandeep Bagla
  • John Smirniotopoulos
  • Julie Orlando
  • Rachel Piechowiak
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP; however, there are limited cost comparisons reported. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital direct costs of elective PAE and TURP in a hospital setting.

Materials and Methods

Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing PAE and TURP from January to December 2014. Inclusion criteria included male patients greater than 40 years of age who presented for ambulatory TURP or PAE with no history of prior surgical intervention for BPH. Direct costs were categorized into the following categories: nursing and operating room or interventional room staffing, operating room or interventional supply costs, anesthesia supplies, anesthesia staffing, hospital room cost, radiology, and laboratory costs. Additionally, length of stay was evaluated for both groups.

Results

The mean patient age for the TURP (n = 86) and PAE (n = 70) cohorts was 71.3 and 64.4 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). Intra-procedural supplies for PAE were significantly more costly than TURP ($1472.77 vs $1080.84, p < 0.0001). When including anesthesia supplies and nursing/staffing, costs were significantly more expensive for TURP than PAE ($2153.64 vs $1667.10 p < 0.0001). The average length of stay for the TURP group was longer at 1.38 versus 0.125 days for the PAE group. Total in-hospital costs for the TURP group ($5338.31, SD $3521.17) were significantly higher than for PAE ($1678.14, SD $442.0, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

When compared to TURP, PAE was associated with significantly lower direct in-hospital costs and shorter hospital stay.

Keywords

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) Cost TURP BPH 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the SIR Foundation Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute Cost-effectiveness and Quality Outcomes Research Grant program.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Sandeep Bagla, John Smirniotopoulos, Julie Orlando, and Rachel Piechowiak have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    AUA Practice Guidelines Committee. American urological association guideline: management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wei JT, Calhoun E, Jacobsen SJ. Urologic diseases in America project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2005;173:1256–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnevale FC, Antunes AA, da Motta Leal Filho JM, de Oliveira Cerri LM, Baroni RH, Marcelino AS, Freire GC, Moreira AM, Srougi M, Cerri GG. Prostatic artery embolization as a primary treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: preliminary results in two patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(2):355–61. doi: 10.1007/s00270-009-9727-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurbatov P, Russo GI, Lepetukhin A, et al. Prostatic artery embolization for prostate volume greater then 80 cm3: results from a single center projective study. Urology. 2014;84:400–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pisco JM, et al. Medium- and long-term outcome of prostate artery embolization for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: results in 630 patients. J Vasc Intvent Radiol. 2016;27:1115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uflacker A, Haskal ZJ, Bilhim T, Patrie J, Huber T, Pisco JM. Meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagla S, Smirniotopoulos JB, Orlando JC, van Breda A, Vadlamudi V. Comparative analysis of prostate volume as a predictor of outcome in prostate artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(12):1832–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.08.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carnevale FC, Iscaife A, Yoshinaga EM, Moreira AM, Antunes AA, Srougi M. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus original and PErFecTED prostate arteryembolization (PAE) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (bph): preliminary results of a single center, prospective, urodynamic-controlled analysis. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2016;39(1):44–52. doi: 10.1007/s00270-015-1202-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uflacker A, Haskal ZJ, Bilhim T, Patrie J, Huber T, Pisco JM. Meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(11):1686–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao YA, Huang Y, Zhang R, Yang YD, Zhang Q, Hou M, Wang Y. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate—a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. Radiology. 2014;270(3):920–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Bagla
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Smirniotopoulos
    • 3
  • Julie Orlando
    • 1
  • Rachel Piechowiak
    • 1
  1. 1.Vascular Institute of VirginiaWoodbridgeUSA
  2. 2.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations