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.

Mid-Term Results of EVAR in Severe Proximal Aneurysm Neck Angulation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if mid-term outcome following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with the Endurant Stent Graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) is influenced by severe proximal neck angulation. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed using data from a prospective multicenter database. All measurements were obtained using dedicated reconstruction software and center-lumen line reconstruction. Patients with neck length >15 mm, infrarenal angle (β) >75°, and/or suprarenal angle (α) >60°, or neck length >10 mm with β >60°, and/or α >45° were compared with a matched control group. Primary endpoint was primary clinical success. Secondary endpoints were freedom from rupture, type 1A endoleak, stent fractures, freedom from neck-related reinterventions, and aneurysm-related adverse events. Morphological neck variation over time was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included in the study group and were compared with a matched control group with 65 patients. Median follow-up time was 49.5 months (range 30.5-58.4). The 4-year primary clinical success estimates were 83% and 80% for the angulated and nonangulated groups (p = .42). Proximal neck angulation did not affect primary clinical success in a multivariate model (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.55-4.41). Groups did not differ significantly in regard to freedom from rupture (p = .79), freedom from type 1A endoleak (p = .79), freedom from neck-related adverse events (p = .68), and neck-related reinterventions (p = .68). Neck angle reduction was more pronounced in patients with severe proximal neck angulation (mean Δα -15.6°, mean Δβ -30.6°) than in the control group (mean Δα -0.39°, mean Δβ -5.9°) (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Mid-term outcomes following EVAR with the Endurant Stent Graft were not influenced by severe proximal neck angulation in our population. Despite the conformability of the device, moderate aortic neck remodeling was identified in the group of patients with angulated neck anatomy on the first computed tomography scan after implantation with no important further remodeling afterwards. No device integrity failures were encountered.