Long term (5 year) results from the largest, prospective, randomized, controlled study of the minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL)

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

Prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A recent addition to these is prostatic urethral lift (PUL).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PUL for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 31 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While we planned to include non-RCTs if RCTs had provided low-certainty evidence for a given outcome and comparison, we could not find any non-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function.PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.44 to -2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD -1.20, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -1.40, 95% CI -3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence).PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence).With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence).We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison.We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.