Unilateral versus bilateral prostatic arterial embolization in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Predictors of Prostatic Artery Embolization Technical Outcomes: Patient and Procedural Factors

PURPOSE

To identify technical factors that significantly change prostatic artery embolization (PAE) technical outcomes and to derive and test technical outcome predictive models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of PAEs performed by 2 operators (OPs) was performed: OP1, between April 2014 and May 2017 (n = 150); OP2, between February 2017 and December 2017 (n = 67). Multivariate analysis with mixed-effects modeling was used to test significance and derive predictive models. Mean difference was used to analyze prediction accuracy.

RESULTS

Moderate versus none subjective iliac tortuosity grade (SITG) and the presence of internal iliac atherosclerosis (PIIAA) versus none were associated with the following respective technical outcome increases: procedure time (PT): 43% (P < .01), 16% (P < .01); fluoroscopy time (FT): 47% (P < .01), 25% (P < .01); contrast volume (CV): 25.6 mL (P < .001), 13.7 mL (P = .01); and dose area product (DAP) 52% (P < .01), 20% (P = 0.03). Prostatic artery origin left obturator versus left superior vesical was associated with a 24% (P = .01) DAP decrease. For every 1 cc that prostate volume increased, CV decreased on average by 0.1 mL (P = .05). For every 1-cm decrease in patient height and 1-kg increase in weight, DAP increased on average by 0.02% (P < .01) for each. Unilateral versus bilateral versus 3-vessel embolization resulted in a 16.3-mL CV decrease on average for each additional vessel embolized (P = .03). The mean absolute differences between predicted and measured technical outcome values were: PT: 16 minutes, FT: 7 minutes, CV: 25 mL, and DAP: 44 Gy·cm².

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, higher SITGs and PIIAA most likely contributed to higher technical outcomes when controlling for the 2 OPs.