Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access: Technical Results.

PURPOSE

To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.