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

Prostate volume: does it predict patient outcomes following prostate artery embolisation? A retrospective cohort study

Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a minimally invasive procedure commonly performed to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is a validated patient questionnaire quantifying LUTS and is used for patient selection for PAE, but it is largely subjective. Prostate volume is an easily estimated objective parameter across multiple imaging modalities. No strict threshold of prostate volume is established as a selection criterion for PAE, but it is generally accepted that prostate volume should be over 40 to 50 mL.We looked at a sample of 65 cases performed at a large teaching hospital between 2017 and 2019 with a minimum of four years follow up. Embospheres between 100 to 500 microns were injected into the prostatic arteries bilaterally (if technically feasible). A 'bullet shape' model was used to estimate prostatic volume from initial CT. N = 13 had an estimated volume < 51 mL (range 31-50 mL). IPSS before and at 3 months post-procedure were collected.80% of patients indicated a beneficial response to PAE (IPSS improvement > 5). 23% of patients required further PAE procedure or surgery. No major complications were recorded. The mean change in IPSS under 51 mL compared to over 51 mL cohort was 10.2 versus 11 (standard deviation 7.5 versus 7.3) (p = 0.44, 2 tailed Student's T-test).There was no statistically significant difference in the IPSS improvement or outcome of small volume prostates under 51 mL compared to large volume. Our results suggest that prostate volume should not be used to exclude patients for PAE.

Value of magnetic resonance angiography before prostatic artery embolization for intervention planning

Knowledge about anatomical details seems to facilitate the procedure and planning of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPS). The aim of our study was the pre-interventional visualization of the prostatic artery (PA) with MRA and the correlation of iliac elongation and bifurcation angles with technical success of PAE and technical parameters. MRA data of patients with PAE were analysed retrospectively regarding PA visibility, PA type, vessel elongation, and defined angles were correlated with intervention time, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK), contrast media (CM) dose and technical success of embolization. T-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and Kruskal-Wallis test was applied for statistical analysis. Between April 2018 and March 2021, a total of 78 patients were included. MRA identified the PA origin in 126 of 147 cases (accuracy 86%). Vessel elongation affected time for catheterization of right PA (p = 0.02), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.05), and CM dose (p = 0.02) significantly. Moderate correlation was observed for iliac bifurcation angles with DAP (r = 0.30 left; r = 0.34 right; p = 0.01) and CAK (r = 0.32 left; r = 0.36 right; p = 0.01) on both sides. Comparing the first half and second half of patients, median intervention time (125 vs. 105 min.) and number of iliac CBCT could be reduced (p < 0.001). We conclude that MRA could depict exact pelvic artery configuration, identify PA origin, and might obviate iliac CBCT. Vessel elongation of pelvic arteries increased intervention time and contrast media dose while the PA origin had no significant influence on intervention time and/or technical success.

Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access

PURPOSE

To compare prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA-PAE) versus transfemoral access (TFA-PAE) to assist access selection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Procedural outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in 998 patients who underwent PAE at a single center from April 2014 to August 2022; 821 (82%) underwent TRA-PAE (Group R) and 177 (18%) underwent TFA-PAE (Group F). Mean age and prostate size of Groups R and F were 69.2 years (SD ± 8.4) and 117.4 g (SD ± 63.1) and 75.2 years (SD ± 12.1) and 127.2 g (SD ± 83.6), respectively (P < .01 and P = .16; postpropensity matching: P = .38 and P = .35, respectively). Indications for PAE included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute or chronic urinary retention, and hematuria. Procedural and patient-specific metrics were reviewed. Technical success was defined as bilateral PAE. Adverse events were recorded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse events classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 798 (97.2%) patients in Group R and 165 (93.2%) patients in Group F. Mean procedural time, single- and continuous-rotation fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were significantly lower in Group R than in Group F (P < .001). Moreover, 6 (0.7%) patients in Group R and 9 (5.5%) patients in Group F had access site ecchymoses, whereas 5 (0.6%) patients in Group R and 6 (3.6%) in Group F had access site hematomas. Two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) after TRA-PAE and recovered without intervention. Two occult radial artery occlusions were noted, but no patient experienced hand ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large single interventional radiologist cohort, TRA-PAE demonstrated similar technical success to that of TFA-PAE with lower access site hemorrhagic complications and radiation requirements; however, TIA and occult radial artery occlusions remain a concern.

Cardiovascular Comorbidities Do Not Impact Prostate Artery Embolisation (PAE) Outcomes: Retrospective Analysis of the National UK-ROPE Registry

PURPOSE

Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a key treatment for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Common cardiovascular risk factors might be associated with suboptimal outcomes and thus influence patient treatment selection. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether cardiovascular comorbidities affect PAE outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective subset analysis of the UK Registry of Prostate Artery Embolisation (UK-ROPE) database was performed with patients who had a full documented past medical histories including hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes and smoking status as well as international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at baseline and at 12 months. Multiple regression was performed to assess for any significant predictors.

RESULTS

Comorbidity data were available for 100/216 patients (mean age 65.8 ± 6.4 years), baseline IPSS 20.9 ± 7.0). Regression analysis revealed that the presence of hypertension (53.7% IPSS reduction vs. absence 51.4%, p = 0.94), diabetes (52.6% vs. absence 52.1%, p = 0.6), CAD (59.2% vs. absence 51.4%, p = 0.95), no comorbidities (49.8% vs. any comorbidity present 55.3%, p = 0.66), smoking status (non-smoker, 52.6%, current smoker, 61.5%, ex-smoker, 49.8%, p > 0.05), age (p = 0.52) and baseline Qmax (p = 0.41) did not significantly impact IPSS reduction at 12 months post-PAE. Baseline prostate volume significantly influenced IPSS reduction (≥ 80 cc prostates, 58.9% vs. < 80 cc prostates 43.2%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The presence of cardiovascular comorbidities/smoking history does not appear to significantly impact PAE symptom score outcomes at 12 months post procedure. Our findings suggest that if the prostatic artery can be accessed, then clinical success is comparable to those without cardiovascular comorbidities.

Assessement of Radiological Anatomy of Prostatic Artery on 3D DECT in Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy

Background

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BHP) is a common disease in the urinary system and often appears in old male patients with the incidence increasing proportionally to age.

Objective

The study aimed to describe the anatomy and imaging findings of the prostatic artery (PAs) on 3D rendering dual-energy multi-sequence computed tomography (DECT) in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) treated by prostatic artery embolisation (PAE).

Methods

The study was conducted on 64 patients with BPH who underwent DECT scans with 3D rendering of the pelvic artery before intervention from August 2022 to November 2023. The PAs were independently evaluated for each side, focusing on the number of branches, origin, tortuosity, atherosclerotic plaque, and anastomoses with adjacent arteries.

Results

Among 128 pelvic sides where the PAs can be observed, the rate of finding 01 prostate artery on each side was high (96.1%), and the rate of 02 prostate arteries on each side was rare (3.9%). In 133 prostatic arteries, the most common type of prostatic artery according to origin is type I (29.6%), followed by type III (24.6%). The atherosclerotic prostatic artery rate is 24.6%, and the average diameter is 1.5±0.4 mm. The tortuosity prostate artery accounted for 74.6%. The anastomosis to the contralateral prostatic artery rate is 48.4%, followed by the penis and rectum anastomoses.

Conclusion

PAs have abundant original varies between the left and right sides and between patient to patient. The most common form arises from the internal pudendal artery.

Prostatic Arterial Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated with Benign Prostatic Enlargement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an emerging minimally invasive technique for lower urinary tract symptom reduction from benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). While the technique is becoming increasingly popular with patients and interventional radiologists, most urologists remain skeptical of the PAE's long-term efficacy and comparative success to the gold standard transurethral resection of the prostate.

RECENT FINDINGS

PAE has been found in multiple meta-analyses to perform similarly to the gold standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with regard to patient-driven measures like IPSS and IPSS-QoL, while also performing favorably in objective measurements including Qmax and PVR out to at least 12 months post intervention. Furthermore, PAE has a demonstrated shorter hospital length of stay and fewer adverse events when compared to TURP. PAE provides patients with an alternative to transurethral options for the management of LUTS in the setting of bladder outlet obstruction. While long-term evidence demonstrating the durability of PAE is still forthcoming, the procedure has been demonstrated to be safe according to multiple meta-analyses. Patients deserve to be counseled on PAE as an alternative to surgery and made aware that while the overall treatment effect may not be as robust or durable, the procedure carries a favorable adverse event profile that is attractive to patients wishing to avoid a trans-urethral approach.

Prostate Artery Embolization: Challenges, Tips, Tricks, and Perspectives

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) consists of blocking the arteries supplying the prostate to treat benign prostate hypertrophia (BPH). Its effectiveness on both urinary symptoms and flowmetric parameters has now been amply demonstrated by around a hundred studies, including several randomized trials. The main advantage of this procedure is the very low rate of urinary and sexual sequelae, including ejaculatory, with an excellent tolerance profile. The arterial anatomy is a key element for the realization of PAE. Its knowledge makes it possible to anticipate obstacles and prevent potential complications related to nontarget embolization. Nontarget embolization can occur with a small intraprostatic shunt or reflux and has no consequences except some local inflammation symptoms that resolve in a couple of days. Nevertheless, some situations with large arterial shunts arising from the prostatic artery must be recognized (accessory rectal, bladder, or pudendal branches), and must imperatively be protected before embolization, at the risk of exposing oneself to otherwise ischemic complications that are more severe, such as bladder necrosis and skin or mucosal necrosis. This article offers a step-by-step review of the various anatomical and technical key points to ensure technical and clinical success, while avoiding the occurrence of adverse events.

Anatomical variants in prostatic artery embolization in treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Background

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most prevalent benign tumor in aged men, and its prevalence is rising with age reaching 8% in the fourth decade of life and up to 90% in the ninth decade. PAE has long been considered as a safe and effective minimally invasive therapy option for individuals with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms caused by prostatic hypertrophy. Because of the varying degrees of atherosclerosis seen in the elderly, PAE is generally a difficult treatment that necessitates a particular amount of knowledge of anatomy and a specific set of abilities. It is critical to emphasize anatomical information about PA that is required for a successful PAE, as well as radiation exposure factors that can be helpful in such a protracted treatment. This thesis provides a pictorial review of PA anatomy and prevalence of related anatomical variants, besides additional anatomical and radiation dosage concerns, and knows the important effect of the anastomosis on non-target embolization as in our study we included large number of cases (83 patients) to cover all types of variations and different types of anastomosis all were covered.

Results

A total of 83 patients (166 sides) were analyzed. Double arterial supply on the same side was noted in 1 patient (1.2%). In 3 patients (3.6%), only a unilateral PA was identified. PA origin frequencies were computed. Penile, rectal, vesical anastomoses, and anastomosis with the other side were identified with 7 (8.4%), 3 (3.6%), 2 (2.4%), and 8 (9.6%) of PAs, respectively. Mean skin radiation dose was 479 mGy.

Conclusions

When treating BPH with PAE, understanding PA anatomy is critical for achieving the best results. The anatomy of the PA is critical for preventing non-target embolization and is directly related to the correct identification of the anatomical pattern of the prostate arteries, and we should also take into account the presence of contralateral anastomoses; it is possible to achieve both prostate lobes through catheterization of the prostatic artery on only one side.

Center experience and other determinants of patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization: a retrospective study in three Scandinavian centers

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of center experience and a variety of patient- and procedure-related factors on patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in three Scandinavian centers with different PAE protocols and levels of experience. Understanding factors that influence radiation exposure is crucial in effective patient selection and procedural planning.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for 352 consecutive PAE procedures from January 2015 to June 2020 at the three centers. Dose area product (DAP (Gy·cm²)) was selected as the primary outcome measure of radiation exposure. Multiple patient- and procedure-related explanatory variables were collected and correlated with the outcome variable. A multiple linear regression model was built to determine significant predictors of increased or decreased radiation exposure as reflected by DAP.

RESULTS

There was considerable variation in DAP between the centers. Intended unilateral PAE (p = 0.03) and each 10 additional patients treated (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of decreased DAP. Conversely, increased patient body mass index (BMI, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001), and number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) acquisitions (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of increased DAP.

CONCLUSIONS

To minimize patient radiation exposure during PAE radiologists may, in collaboration with clinicians, consider unilateral embolization, pre-interventional CTA for procedure planning, using predominantly anteroposterior (AP) projections, and limiting the use of cone-beam CT (CBCT) and fluoroscopy.

KEY POINTS

• Growing center experience and intended unilateral embolization decrease patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization. • Patient BMI, fluoroscopy time, and number of DSA acquisitions are associated with increased DAP during procedures. • Large variation in radiation exposure between the centers may reflect the use of CTA before and CBCT during the procedure.

MR angiography-planned prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: single-center retrospective study in 56 patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the advantages of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)-planned prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, MRAs of 56 patients (mean age, 67.23±7.73 years; age range, 47-82 years) who underwent PAE between 2017 and 2018 were evaluated. For inclusion, full information about procedure time and radiation values must have been available. To identify prostatic artery (PA) origin, three-dimensional MRA reconstruction with maximum intensity projection was conducted in every patient. In total, 33 patients completed clinical and imaging follow-up and were included in clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

There were 131 PAs with a second PA in 19 pelvic sides. PA origin was correctly identified via MRA in 108 of 131 PAs (82.44%). In patients in which MRA allowed a PA analysis, a significant reduction of the fluoroscopy time (-27.0%, p = 0.028) and of the dose area product (-38.0%, p = 0.003) was detected versus those with no PA analysis prior to PAE. Intervention time was reduced by 13.2%, (p = 0.25). Mean fluoroscopy time was 30.1 min, mean dose area product 27,749 µGy•m2, and mean entrance dose 1553 mGy. Technical success was achieved in all 56 patients (100.0%); all patients were embolized on both pelvic sides. The evaluated data documented a significant reduction in IPSS (p < 0.001; mean 9.67 points).

CONCLUSION

MRA prior to PAE allowed the identification of PA in 82.44% of the cases. MRA-planned PAE is an effective treatment for patients with BPH.

Prostatic artery embolization treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who are permanent urinary catheter users ineligible for de-obstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is considered the most frequent cause of lower urinary tract symptoms. Urinary catheterization is the emergency treatment for patients with urinary retention and surgery is indicated in patients refractory to medical treatment. There is a group of people with important comorbidities that make them ineligible for surgery. Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) could be presented as a safe and effective alternative to achieve bladder emptying and spontaneous urination, thus avoiding permanent urinary catheterization in patients with significant comorbidities that represent a contraindication for surgery. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the efficacy of PAE in patients with permanent urinary catheterization who are ineligible for surgical treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 26 patients with permanent urinary catheter who underwent prostatic embolization. Demographic and clinical data (age, use of anticoagulation, prostate volume, length of hospital stay, unilateral or bilateral embolization), Charlson comorbidity index evaluation and Clavien-Dindo classification for procedural complications were reviewed. Successful removal of permanent urinary catheter was analyzed at one month after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients were included in the review. The median age was 85 years with a median prostate volume of 90 mL. A Charlson comorbidity score above 7 was obtained in 88.5% of the subjects. Only one patient had one Clavien-Dindo III complication. Of the 26 subjects, 17 (65.4%) had spontaneous micturition and a postvoid residual lower than 100 mL at one month post procedure. Overall, catheter removal was achieved in 19 out of 26 subjects (73.1%).

CONCLUSION

PAE is a safe and effective treatment for patients with permanent urinary catheterization who are ineligible for surgical treatment.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Anatomical Aspects and Radiation Considerations from a Case Series of 210 Patients

Context Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been established as a safe and effective treatment option for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Thorough knowledge of detailed prostatic artery (PA) anatomy is essential.

Aims The aim of this study was to provide a pictorial review of PA anatomy and prevalence of related anatomical variants, in addition to other anatomical and radiation dose considerations.

Settings and Design Case series and review of literature.

Materials and Methods We performed PAE for 210 patients from November 2015 to November 2020 under local anesthesia only. Anatomy, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, technical success, and complications were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis Used Descriptive statistics were analyzed using Microsoft Excel software.

Results A total of 210 patients (420 sides) were analyzed. Double arterial supply on the same side was noted in 12 patients (5.7%). In 10 patients (4.7%), only a unilateral PA was identified. In two patients (0.9%), no PA could be identified. Frequencies of PA origins were calculated. Penile, rectal, and vesical anastomoses were identified with 79 (18.8%), 54 (12.9%), and 41 (9.8%) of PAs, respectively. Median skin radiation dose, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time were 505 mGy, 73 and 38 minutes, respectively. Complications occurred in nine patients (4.3%), none of them was major.

Conclusions Knowledge of PA anatomy is essential when treating BPH by PAE for optimum results. There is no enough evidence to support routine use of preoperative computed tomography angiography and intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography as means of improving safety or efficacy.

Prostatic artery embolization treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who are permanent urinary catheter users ineligible for de-obstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is considered the most frequent cause of lower urinary tract symptoms. Urinary catheterization is the emergency treatment for patients with urinary retention and surgery is indicated in patients refractory to medical treatment. There is a group of people with important comorbidities that make them ineligible for surgery. Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) could be presented as a safe and effective alternative to achieve bladder emptying and spontaneous urination, thus avoiding permanent urinary catheterization in patients with significant comorbidities that represent a contraindication for surgery. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the efficacy of PAE in patients with permanent urinary catheterization who are ineligible for surgical treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 26 patients with permanent urinary catheter who underwent prostatic embolization. Demographic and clinical data (age, use of anticoagulation, prostate volume, length of hospital stay, unilateral or bilateral embolization), Charlson comorbidity index evaluation and Clavien-Dindo classification for procedural complications were reviewed. Successful removal of permanent urinary catheter was analyzed at one month after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients were included in the review. The median age was 85 years with a median prostate volume of 90mL. A Charlson comorbidity score above 7 was obtained in 88.5% of the subjects. Only one patient had one Clavien-Dindo III complication. Of the 26 subjects, 17 (65.4%) had spontaneous micturition and a postvoid residual lower than 100mL at one month post procedure. Overall, catheter removal was achieved in 19 out of 26 subjects (73.1%).

CONCLUSION

PAE is a safe and effective treatment for patients with permanent urinary catheterization who are ineligible for surgical treatment.

Angiographic prostatic arterial anatomy in a Turkish population with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Background/aim

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive effective method in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The procedure is technically challenging, as pelvic vascular anatomy is highly prone to variations and the identification of the prostatic artery (PA) is the most time-consuming step, which can lead to increased procedure times. The aim of this study was to categorize the anatomic variations in the prostatic supply in patients with BPH treated with PAE.

Materials and methods

The digital subtraction angiography findings of 68 PAE procedures were reviewed retrospectively and the age, PA origin, number, and procedure of the patients were recorded. The origin of the PA was classified into 5 subtypes using the de Assis/Carnavale classification. The incidence of each anatomic type was calculated.

Results

In the 68 PAE procedures, 119 pelvic sides were analyzed and a total of 119 PAs were classified. The most common origin was type 1 (n = 43, 36.1%), with the PA originating from the anterior division of the internal iliac artery (IIA), from a common trunk with the superior vesical artery. This was followed by type 4 (n = 34, 28.6%), with the PA originating from the internal pudendal artery; type 3 (n = 22, 18.5%), with the PA originating from the obturator artery; and type 2 (n = 13, 10.9%), with the PA originating from the anterior division of the IIA.

Conclusion

Anatomic variations are common in the IIA and PA, showing racial and individual differences. Following a standard classification system to identify the origin of the PA is crucial and being aware of the most common types in each population will make PAE a faster and safer procedure.

Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) have a Differential Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): Retrospective Analysis of the Multicentre UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) Study

PURPOSE

To compare the relative IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) improvement in storage and voiding symptoms between prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of the UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) multicentre database was conducted with inclusion of all patients with full IPSS questionnaire score data. The voiding and storage subscore improvement was compared between interventions. Student's t-test (paired and unpaired) and ANOVA (Analysis of variance) were used to identify significant differences between the groups.

RESULTS

146 patients (121 PAE, 25 TURP) were included in the analysis. Storage symptoms were more frequently the most severe symptom ('storage' in 75 patients vs 'voiding' in 17 patients). Between groups, no significant difference was seen in raw storage subscore improvement (TURP 4.9 vs PAE 4.2; p = 0.34) or voiding subscore improvement (TURP 8.4 vs PAE 6.7; p = 0.1). ANOVA demonstrated a greater proportionate reduction (relative to total IPSS) towards voiding symptoms in the TURP group (27.3% TURP vs 9.9% PAE, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although both TURP and PAE improve voiding symptoms more than storage, a significantly larger proportion of total symptom reduction is due to voiding in the TURP cohort, with PAE providing a more balanced improvement between voiding and storage.

Reasons to consider prostatic artery embolization

PURPOSE

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a truly minimally invasive treatment option for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms presumed secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) over the last few years and is now supported by evidence-based international guidelines. Here, we provide an overview on the profile of PAE based on the most relevant and recent literature.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of literature on PAE was conducted on PubMed-Medline. The most relevant literature was summarized narratively.

RESULTS

While there is still a lack of long-term data, efficacy and safety data have been published for the short to mid-term. As with any minimally invasive technique, relief of bladder outlet obstruction is less pronounced after PAE compared to more invasive resective techniques. This is likely to be associated with higher re-intervention rates during the longer term. However, due to its beneficial safety profile, PAE represents an interesting option for many patients and could fill a niche between pharmacotherapy and formal surgical intervention. Given its unique treatment approach, i.e. endovascular instead of transurethral, PAE has a clearly different profile compared to other minimally invasive treatments. Performance with local anesthesia with possible continuation of anticoagulant drugs and no upper prostate size limit are the most important advantages of PAE.

CONCLUSION

PAE represents a valuable supplement in the treatment armamentarium of LUTS/BPH if patients are selected appropriately.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Equipment, Procedure Steps, and Overcoming Technical Challenges

In the last decade, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) established itself as a safe and effective treatment option for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), with reproducible results across multiple centers and endorsement by important international societies. However, PAE is also known to be a technically demanding procedure. Accompanying the prevalence of benign prostate hyperplasia, the procedure is usually performed in older patients, in whom atherosclerosis and comorbidities are common features. Also, prostatic vascular anatomy is described to be complex and variable, and pelvic structures are deeply interconnected by anastomosis. Thus, PAE demands a deep familiarization with materials and devices, intraprocedure imaging techniques, microcatetherization skills and with the pelvic vascular anatomy. Especially in the beginning of the learning curve, the procedure can be time-consuming and related to high radiation exposure for both medical team and the patient. In this article, the main points of technical concern during PAE are described and discussed, such as the equipment needed, the effect of different embolic materials, patient's preparation for the procedure, arterial access sites, identifying and catheterizing the prostatic arteries, the embolization techniques, among others. Finally, the most frequent technical challenges are presented, and the possible strategies to overcome them are exemplified and discussed.

Predictors of technical outcome for prostatic artery embolisation using pre-procedural CT angiography

OBJECTIVES

Predicting patients that will pose procedural technical challenges in prostate artery embolisation (PAE) remains difficult, with prolonged procedural times impacting on both patient dose and resource planning. Understanding the factors that influence these parameters as well as the likelihood of technical success is therefore important in effective patient selection and procedural planning.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for 75 consecutive patients who underwent PAE. Multiple patient predictor variables available from planning computed tomography angiography (CTA) were identified and measured objectively. The vessel angles navigated during the procedure, prostate volume, prostate artery (PA) diameter, PA origin, aortic atheroma, iliac tortuosity and baseline demographics were correlated with outcome variables (fluoroscopy time, air kerma (AK), dose area product (DAP), the number of cone beam CTs (CBCTs)) performed and whether bilateral embolisation was possible (technical success). Data were analysed using linear regression, ANOVA, t tests and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Aortic atheroma severity significantly increased fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), whilst air kerma (AK) was significantly greater in patients with smaller prostatic arteries (p = 0.009) and smaller pre-procedural prostate volumes (p = 0.038). Increased vascular tortuosity and prostatic artery origin were not shown to significantly affect fluoroscopy time or DAP. Smaller prostate artery size (p = 0.007) also increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative prediction of technical outcome measures in PAE remains challenging. However, vascular calcification, prostatic artery diameter and prostate volume are likely to be important factors when considering the risk/benefits of PAE.

KEY POINTS

• Increased severity of atheroma and the presence of small prostate arteries increase fluoroscopy time and AK respectively during prostate artery embolisation. • Lower pre-procedural prostate volume increases the AK during procedures. • Smaller prostate artery size increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure.

Influence of Interventionists' Experience on Radiation Exposure of Patients Who Underwent Prostate Artery Embolization: 4-Year Results from a Retrospective, Single-Center Study

PURPOSE

To assess radiation exposure in men undergoing prostate artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment for symptomatic, benign prostatic hyperplasia depending on growing experience of interventional radiologists over a 4-year period.

METHODS

A total of 250 consecutive patients underwent PAE at a single center. Data on radiation exposure [dose area product (DAP), effective dose (ED), entrance skin dose (ESD), and fluoroscopy time (FT)] were retrospectively evaluated. Primary outcomes of interest were patient radiation exposure in five consecutive groups of 50 patients each and Pearson correlation with the number of patients treated.

RESULTS

Median DAP, ED, and ESD during prostate artery embolization were significantly higher in the first compared to the second 50 patients (56 298 µGym² vs. 24 709 µGym², p < 0.001, 146.4 mSv vs. 64.2 mSv, p < 0.001, and 5.1 Gy vs. 2.4 Gy, p < 0.001, respectively). The following consecutive groups did not differ significantly from the respective preceding group in terms of DAP, ED, and ESD. Number of digital subtraction angiography series, FT, and procedure time decreased with increasing operator experience (Pearson's r = - 0.240, p < 0.001, r = - 0.269, p < 0.001, and r = - 0.504, p < 0.001, respectively). Bilateral prostate artery embolization was associated with less ESD and shorter FT than unilateral embolization (median 2.5 vs. 3.5 Gy, p = 0.02, and 26 min vs. 42 min, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Exposure to radiation in men who underwent PAE decreased with growing operator experience and decreasing complexity of procedures.

Prostatic Artery Embolization-Anatomic Predictors of Technical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To determine if cone-beam CT and digital subtraction angiography analysis of pelvic arterial anatomy has predictive value for radiation exposure and technical success of prostatic artery embolization (PAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study included 104 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cone-beam CT was performed in 160/208 (76.9%) hemipelves to determine prostatic artery (PA) origin. Classification of pelvic arterial tortuosity was possible in 73/104 (70.2%) patients. Learning curves of 2 interventionalists who performed 86.5% of PAEs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Tortuosity of pelvic arteries was classified as mild in 25 (34.2%) patients median age 64 years, moderate in 40 (54.8%) patients median age 69 years, and severe in 8 (11.0%) patients median age 70 years (mild vs moderate, P = .002; mild vs severe, P = .019); median fluoroscopy times were 24, 36, and 46 minutes (P = .008, P = .023); median contrast volumes were 105, 122.5, and 142 mL (P = .029, P = .064); and bilateral PAE rates were 84.0%, 77.5%, and 62.5% (P = .437), respectively. PA origin from superior vesical artery was most frequent (27.5%) and showed higher dose area product (median 402.4 vs 218 Gy ∙ cm², P = .033) and fluoroscopy time (median 42.5 vs 27 min, P = .01) compared with PA origin from obturator artery, which was least frequent. Interventionalist experience revealed significant impact on procedure times (median 159 vs 130 min, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Tortuosity of pelvic arteries was more frequent in older patients and predicted worse technical outcomes of PAE. PA origin from obturator artery was associated with lower dose area product and fluoroscopy time, especially compared with PA origin from superior vesical artery. Interventionalist experience showed significant influence on technical outcome.

Modern imaging and image-guided treatments of the prostate gland: MR and ablation for cancer and prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has proven to be an essential tool for diagnosis, post-treatment follow-up, aggressiveness assessment, and active surveillance of prostate cancer. Currently, this imaging technique is part of the daily practice in many oncological centres. This manuscript aims to review the use of mpMRI in the set of prostatic diseases, either malignant or benign: mpMRI to detect and stage prostate cancer is discussed, as well as its use for active surveillance. Image-guided ablation techniques for prostate cancer are also reviewed. The need to establish minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI, standardize reports, uniform terminology for describing imaging findings, and develop assessment categories that differentiate levels of suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer led to the development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System that is reviewed. Special focus will also be given on the most up-to-date evidence of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Management of patients with BPH, technical aspects of PAE, expected outcomes and level of evidence are reviewed with the most recent literature. PAE is a challenging technique that requires dedicated anatomical knowledge and comprehensive embolization skills. PAE has been shown to be an effective minimally-invasive treatment option for symptomatic BPH patients, that can be viewed between medical therapy and surgery. PAE may be a good option for symptomatic BPH patients that do not want to be operated and can obviate the need for prostatic surgery in up to 80% of treated patients.