Efficacy of High-Dose Dexamethasone in Reducing the Symptoms of Postembolization Syndrome Following Prostatic Artery Embolization: Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone in reducing postembolization syndrome following prostatic artery embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial from March 2021 to May 2022 (NCT04588857). Participants were randomized to receive either i.v. 24 mg dexamethasone or saline. The primary outcome measures were temperature, pain, and quality of life in the first 5 days following prostatic artery embolization. Sample size of 60 patients was needed for the assessment of primary outcomes. Participants were followed for 6 months and assessed for a variety of secondary outcome measures including inflammatory markers and lower urinary tract symptoms severity.

RESULTS

Due to lack of clinical effect and mild symptoms in the control group, the trial was terminated early. 31 participants (16 dexamethasone vs. 15 control) were enrolled and analyzed. A difference in mean temperature was observed on day 1 (37.23 ± 0.64 °C control vs 36.74 ± 0.41 °C dexamethasone, p = 0.02, 95% CI 0.09-0.89). Difference in pain (score out of 10) was seen only on day 5 (1.48 ± 1.2 control vs. 2.9 ± 2.24 dexamethasone, p = 0.04, 95% CI - 2.78-- 0.04). A difference in C-reactive protein values was observed on day 2 (108 [54-161] mg/l control vs 10 [5-33] mg/l dexamethasone, p < 0.01). No significant differences in other outcomes were observed. No side effects were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-four milligrams of dexamethasone bolus is safe but does not reduce postembolization syndrome following prostatic artery embolization.

Prostatic artery embolization in men with severe hemophilia a: a case report of two patients

Background

This is the first case report describing the peri- and postoperative hemostasis plans in two men with severe hemophilia A (HA) who underwent prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Case presentation

Two patients with severe HA and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) not responding to medical therapy underwent PAE at our institution. In both patients, intermittent administration of decreasing doses of extended half-life recombinant factor VIII (EHL rFVIII) concentrate from 30 min before to 7 days after the PAE resulted in good hemostatic control. In addition to EHL rFVIII, tranexamic acid was administered in the same timeframe to augment the action of EHL rFVIII and to account for possible mucosal bleeding from the urinary tract. Both patients reported a minor localized hematoma at the femoral puncture site in the right groin, that resolved spontaneously. No other bleeding complications were observed.

Conclusions

The procoagulant effects of the chosen dosing of EHL rFVIII showed sufficient to perform a technically successful embolization. At 6 months follow-up, both patients had significant reduction in self-reported urinary symptoms and were content with the outcome.

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.

Efficacy of dexamethasone in reducing the postembolisation syndrome in men undergoing prostatic artery embolisation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: protocol for a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the 'DEXAPAE' study

INTRODUCTION

Postembolisation syndrome (PES) is the most common side effect of vascular embolisation of solid organs. Although prophylactic corticosteroids are known to reduce the incidence and severity of PES, no trials investigating their efficacy have been conducted in men undergoing prostatic artery embolisation (PAE). We postulate that steroids can have a similar effect in reducing PES after PAE. This paper describes the rationale and detailed protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEXA) in reducing PES after PAE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we will enrol 60 individuals undergoing PAE for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Participants will be randomised to receive IV DEXA (24 mg) or placebo (saline). The primary outcomes will be postprocedural fever, pain and quality of life. The secondary outcomes will include postprocedural nausea, postprocedural medicine usage, laboratory parameters (C reactive protein, prostate-specific antigen) and early PAE results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Danish Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Capital Region (H-20025910). The results from this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and national and international presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04588857; EudraCT number: 2020-000915-53.

Postembolization Syndrome after Prostatic Artery Embolization: A Systematic Review

Postembolization syndrome (PES) is the most common side effect of vascular embolization of solid organs. The aim of this review was to determine the incidence of PES and its individual components after prostatic artery embolization (PAE). A systematic review with a pre-specified search strategy for PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English regarding PAE in humans with 10 or more participants were eligible for inclusion. No restrictions on participant demographics or PAE technique were imposed. The search returned 378 references, of which 32 studies with a total of 2116 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results for overall PES frequency and individual PES components were presented as median (interquartile range, (IQR)). Overall median PES frequency was 25.5% (12.5–45.8). The two most frequent individual PES components were dysuria/urethral burning and local pain, with a median frequency of 21.7% (13.8–33.3) and 20% (5.4–29.4), respectively. Most outcome measures were characterized by a marked lack of uniformity and inconsistency in reporting across studies. Development of a uniform reporting system would help the clinicians recognize and treat PES accordingly.