The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the clinical success at three months of prostate artery embolization (PAE), assess PAE safety in centers with various experiences and identify factors associated with PAE success.
This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who underwent PAE for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including those with indwelling urinary catheter. PAE clinical success was defined as either 25% improvement of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or 1-point improvement of quality of life (QoL) score, or catheter removal at three months. Multivariable analyses were performed using a logistic regression adjusted on patient variables, technical parameters and center experience in PAE.
A total of 383 men (mean age, 68.4 ± 9.7 [standard deviation] years; range: 46-94) with LUTS, including 99 (25.8%) patients with indwelling urinary catheter, were included in seven centers from January 2017 to March 2019. Five patients reported major complications (1.3%), three (0.8%) penile ulceration, three (0.8%) acute urinary retention, one (0.3%) prostatic abscess, and 56 (14.6%) minor complications. Follow up data were available for 271 patients (center 1: n = 159; other centers: n = 112). Clinical success was reported in 232 patients (85.6%). In multivariable analyses, presence of cardiovascular comorbidities (diabetes, stroke history, myocardial infarction and lower limb artery disease) was the single independent variable inversely associated with PAE clinical success (odds ratio = 0.396; 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.91; P = 0.029). There was no center effect.
Our results show that PAE is safe and effective in centers with various PAE experiences. Cardiovascular comorbidity is the single independent variable associated with PAE failure.
Diagnostic and interventional imaging. 2022 Aug 10 [Epub ahead of print]
Julien Frandon, Asmaa Belaouni, Olivier Pellerin, Nicolas Thiounn, Chris Serrand, Stéphane Droupy, François Petitpierre, Hélène Vernhet-Kovacsik, Thibaut Murez, Vincent Vidal, Julien Ghelfi, Gaele Pagnoux, Ricardo Codas, Hélène de Forges, Jean-Paul Beregi, Marc Sapoval
Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, IMAGINE, 30029 Nîmes, France. Electronic address: ., Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, IMAGINE, 30029 Nîmes, France., Department of Interventional Radiology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, INSERM U970, Université Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 75006 Paris, France., Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Université Paris Cité, 75006 Paris, France., Department of Biostatistics, Clinical Epidemiology, Public Health, and Innovation in Methodology (BESPIM), CHU Nîmes, 30029 Nîmes France., Department of Urology, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, 30029 Nîmes, France., Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin, 33000 Bordeaux, France., Department of Radiology, CHU de Montpellier, Arnaud de Villeneuve Hospital, University of Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France., Department of Urology, CHU de Montpellier, Lapeyronie Hospital, University of Montpellier, 34295 Montpellier, France., Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, AP-HM, Hôpital de La Timone; Université Aix-Marseille, CERIMED, Faculté de Médecine, EA 4264, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Interventionnelle Expérimentale, 13005 Marseille, France., Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Université Grenoble Alpes, Inserm U 1209, 38700 La Tronche, France., Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hospices Civils de Lyon; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, 69002 Lyon, France., Service d'Urologie et Chirurgie de la Transplantation, Hospices Civils de Lyon; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, 69002 Lyon, France.