Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Standard Surgical Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis


Zumstein, Valentin; Betschart, Patrick; Vetterlein, Malte W; Kluth, Luis A; Hechelhammer, Lukas; Mordasini, Livio; Engeler, Daniel S; Kessler, Thomas M; Schmid, Hans-Peter; Abt, Dominik (2018). Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Standard Surgical Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. European Urology Focus:Epub ahead of print.

Abstract

CONTEXT Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-LUTS) despite a lack of high-level evidence. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of PAE versus established surgical therapies. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Embase, and York CRD were searched up to June 23, 2018. Only comparative studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Five studies including 708 patients met the selection criteria. Risk of bias was rated high for most of the studies. Mean reduction in the International Prostate Symptom Score was lower after PAE compared with standard surgical therapies (mean difference 3.80 points [95% confidence interval: 2.77-4.83]; p<0.001). PAE was less efficient regarding improvements in all functional parameters assessed including maximum urinary flow, post void residual, and reduction of prostate volume. In contrast, patient-reported erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function 5) was better after PAE and significantly fewer adverse events occurred after PAE. CONCLUSIONS Moderately strong evidence confirms efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH-LUTS in the short term. Significant advantages regarding safety and sexual function, but clear disadvantages regarding all other patient-reported and functional outcomes were found for PAE. Large-scale randomized controlled trials including longer follow-up periods are mandatory before PAE can be considered as a standard therapy and to define the ideal indication for PAE in the management of BPH-LUTS. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the role of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of symptoms associated with benign overgrowth of the prostate. The results suggest that PAE is not as effective as established surgical therapies but has fewer side effects. Further research is required to determine whether PAE is the best treatment for certain types of patients. PAE should, therefore, not yet be considered a standard treatment.

Abstract

CONTEXT Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-LUTS) despite a lack of high-level evidence. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of PAE versus established surgical therapies. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Embase, and York CRD were searched up to June 23, 2018. Only comparative studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Five studies including 708 patients met the selection criteria. Risk of bias was rated high for most of the studies. Mean reduction in the International Prostate Symptom Score was lower after PAE compared with standard surgical therapies (mean difference 3.80 points [95% confidence interval: 2.77-4.83]; p<0.001). PAE was less efficient regarding improvements in all functional parameters assessed including maximum urinary flow, post void residual, and reduction of prostate volume. In contrast, patient-reported erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function 5) was better after PAE and significantly fewer adverse events occurred after PAE. CONCLUSIONS Moderately strong evidence confirms efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH-LUTS in the short term. Significant advantages regarding safety and sexual function, but clear disadvantages regarding all other patient-reported and functional outcomes were found for PAE. Large-scale randomized controlled trials including longer follow-up periods are mandatory before PAE can be considered as a standard therapy and to define the ideal indication for PAE in the management of BPH-LUTS. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the role of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of symptoms associated with benign overgrowth of the prostate. The results suggest that PAE is not as effective as established surgical therapies but has fewer side effects. Further research is required to determine whether PAE is the best treatment for certain types of patients. PAE should, therefore, not yet be considered a standard treatment.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Balgrist University Hospital, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Center
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:3 October 2018
Deposited On:26 Oct 2018 10:57
Last Modified:24 Sep 2019 23:49
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:2405-4569
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.005
PubMed ID:30292422

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library