Prostate Artery Embolization for Megaprostate Causing Urinary Retention, DVT and Macroscopic Haematuria Post Thrombolysis and Catheterisation: A Case Report

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia is the most common urological condition affecting quality of life in men. Its incidence increases proportionally with age and typically manifests with mixed lower urinary tract symptoms. Giant prostatic hyperplasia, the most extreme form of BPH, can present with more serious clinical consequences and presents a challenge to surgical management. Case presentation: We present the first reported case of provoked deep vein thrombosis and near fatal pulmonary embolus from a symptomatic megaprostate exerting pelvic mass effect on the external iliac vein, further complicated by haematuria post catheter-directed thrombolysis. Conclusion: This case highlights the success of prostate artery embolization and catheter-directed thrombolysis to treat potential sequelae of giant prostate hyperplasia.

1-year cost-utility analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

ObjectiveTo determine whether prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a cost-effective alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after 1-year follow-up.Design, setting and main outcome measuresA retrospective cost-utility analysis over a 12-month time period was conducted to compare the two interventions from a National Health Service perspective. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from data collected during the observational UK Register of Prostate Embolisation (UK-ROPE) Study. Costs for both PAE and TURP were derived from University Hospital Southampton, a tertiary referral centre for BPH and the largest contributor to the UK-ROPE. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from cost and QALY values associated with both interventions to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAE versus TURP. Further sensitivity analyses involved a decision tree model to account for the impact of patient-reported complications on the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsThe mean patient age for TURP (n=31) and PAE (n=133) was 69 and 65.6 years, respectively. In comparison to TURP, PAE was cheaper due to shorter patient stays and the lack of necessity for an operating theatre. Analysis revealed an ICER of £64 798.10 saved per QALY lost when comparing PAE to TURP after 1-year follow-up.ConclusionOur findings suggest that PAE is initially a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the management of BPH after 1-year follow-up. Due to a higher reintervention rate in the PAE group, this benefit may be lost in subsequent years.Trial registration numberNCT02434575.

Prostate Artery Embolization—Review of Indications, Patient Selection, Techniques and Results

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) are a very common problem in men ranging from mild urinary symptoms to recurrent urinary tract infections or renal failure. Numerous treatment options are available ranging from conservative medical therapies to more invasive surgical options. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a novel treatment option for this common problem with clinical efficacy comparable to the current surgical gold standard, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PAE offers fewer complications and side effects without a need for general anesthesia or hospitalization. This review discusses the indications for prostate artery embolization in addition to LUTS, patient evaluation in patients with LUTS, PAE technique and clinical results, with an emphasis on efficacy and safety.

Prostate Artery Embolization Using N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Glue for Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Valid Alternative to Microparticles?

Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of prostate artery embolization (PAE) with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) glue as the only embolic agent in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs). A two-center retrospective study of 50 patients (mean age, 67.6 ± 7.4 years; range, 54–85 years) treated with NBCA between 2017 and 2020 was conducted. PAE was performed using a mixture of Glubran 2 glue and Lipiodol in a 1:8 ratio, under local anesthesia, on an outpatient basis, after cone-beam computed tomography vascular mapping. Mean total injected NBCA/Lipiodol volume was 0.9 ± 0.3 mL, total injection time was 21.9 ± 7.8 s, and total radiation dose was 18,458 ± 16,397 mGy·cm. Statistically significant improvements over time occurred for the International Prostate Symptoms Score (9.9 ± 6.8 versus 20.5 ± 6.7, p = 0.0001), quality-of-life score (2.2 ± 1.5 versus 4.9 ± 1.0, p = 0.0001), prostate-specific antigen level (4.6 ± 3.0 versus 6.4 ± 3.7, p = 0.0001), and prostate volume (77.3 ± 30.5 versus 98.3 ± 40.2, p = 0.0001) at a median of 3 months versus baseline. Minor adverse events developed in 11/50 (22%) patients, but no major complications occurred. The International Index of Erectile Function did not change significantly. PAE with NBCA is feasible, safe, fast, and effective for patients with BPH-related LUTSs. Prospective comparative studies with longer follow-ups are warranted.