Embolisation of Prostatic Arteries as Treatment of Moderate to Severe Lower Urinary Symptoms (LUTS) Secondary to Benign Hyperplasia: Results of Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short- and medium-term results of prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: This was a prospective non-randomised study including 255 patients diagnosed with BPH and moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms after failure of medical treatment for at least 6 months. The patients underwent PAE between March 2009 and April 2012. Technical success is when selective prostatic arterial embolisation is completed in at least one pelvic side. Clinical success was defined as improving symptoms and quality of life. Evaluation was performed before PAE and at 1, 3, 6 and every 6 months thereafter with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), uroflowmetry, prostatic specific antigen (PSA) and volume. Non-spherical polyvinyl alcohol particles were used. RESULTS: PAE was technically successful in 250 patients (97.9 %). Mean follow-up, in 238 patients, was 10 months (range 1-36). Cumulative rates of clinical success were 81.9 %, 80.7 %, 77.9 %, 75.2 %, 72.0 %, 72.0 %, 72.0 % and 72.0 % at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months, respectively. There was one major complication. CONCLUSIONS: PAE is a procedure with good results for BPH patients with moderate to severe LUTS after failure of medical therapy. KEY POINTS: • Prostatic artery embolisation offers minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. • Prostatic artery embolisation is a challenging procedure because of vascular anatomical variations. • PAE is a promising new technique that has shown good results.

Sepsis Mortality Prediction Based on Predisposition, Infection and Response

OBJECTIVE: To empirically test, based on a large multicenter, multinational database, whether a modified PIRO (predisposition, insult, response, and organ dysfunction) concept could be applied to predict mortality in patients with infection and sepsis. DESIGN: Substudy of a multicenter multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: A total of 2,628 patients with signs of infection or sepsis who stayed in the ICU for >48 h. Three boxes of variables were defined, according to the PIRO concept. Box 1 (Predisposition) contained information about the patient's condition before ICU admission. Box 2 (Injury) contained information about the infection at ICU admission. Box 3 (Response) was defined as the response to the infection, expressed as a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score after 48 h. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Most of the infections were community acquired (59.6%); 32.5% were hospital acquired. The median age of the patients was 65 (50-75) years, and 41.1% were female. About 22% (n=576) of the patients presented with infection only, 36.3% (n=953) with signs of sepsis, 23.6% (n=619) with severe sepsis, and 18.3% (n=480) with septic shock. Hospital mortality was 40.6% overall, greater in those with septic shock (52.5%) than in those with infection (34.7%). Several factors related to predisposition, infection and response were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The proposed three-level system, by using objectively defined criteria for risk of mortality in sepsis, could be used by physicians to stratify patients at ICU admission or shortly thereafter, contributing to a better selection of management according to the risk of death.

The Oncological and Functional Risks of the Organ Preservation Experimental Treatment Approach

We increasingly face conservative surgery for rectal cancer and even the so called ‘wait and see’ approach, as far as 10–20% patients can reach a complete pathological response at the time of surgery. But what can we say to our patients about risks? Standard surgery with mesorectal excision gives a <2% local recurrence with a post operative death rate of 2–8% (may reach 30% at 6 months in those over 85), but low AR has some deterioration in bowel function and in low cancer a permanent stoma may be required. Also a long-term impact on urinary and sexual function is possible. Distant metastasis rate seem to be identical in the standard and conservative approach. It is difficult to evaluate conservative approach because a not clear standardization of surgery for low rectal cancer. Rullier et al tried to clarify, and they found identical results for recurrence (5–9%), disease free survival (70%) at 5y for coloanal anastomosis and intersphinteric resection. Other series have found local recurrence higher than with standard approach and functional results may be worse and, in some situations, salvage therapy is compromised or has more complications. In this context, functional outcomes are very important but most studies are incomplete in measuring bowel function in the context of conservative approach. In 2005 Temple et al made a survey of 122/184 patient after sphinter preserving surgery and found a 96.9% of incomplete evacuation, 94.4% clustering, 93.2% food affecting frequency, 91.8% gas incontinence and proposed a systematic evaluation with a specific questionnaire. In which concerns ‘Wait and see’ approach for complete clinical responders, it was first advocated by Habr Gama for tumors up to 7cm, with a low locoregional failure of 4.6%, 5y overall survival 96%, 72% for disease free survival; one fifth of patients failed in the first year; a Dutch trial had identical results but others had worse recurrence rates; in other series 25% of patients could not be salvaged even with APR; 30% have subsequent metastatic disease what seems equal for ‘wait and see’ and operated patients. In a recent review Glynne Jones considers that all the evaluated ‘wait and see’ studies are heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, design and follow up after chemoradiation and that there is the suggestion that patients who progress while under observation fare worse than those resected. He proposes long-term observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria. We are now facing a moment where we may be more aggressive in early cancer and neoadjuvant treatment to be more conservative in the subsequent treatment but we need a better stratification of patients, better evaluation of results and more clear prognostic markers.