Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208042, New Haven, CT 06520-8042.
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208042, New Haven, CT 06520-8042.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019 Sep;30(9):1459-1470. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.05.033. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
To compare procedural metrics and clinical improvement for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) performed with a balloon-occlusion (BO) versus end-hole (EH) microcatheter in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Retrospective review was performed of 129 patients undergoing PAE with 100-300 μm Embosphere microspheres from April 2013 through August 2018. Microcatheter selection was nonrandom, based on prostatic artery anatomy. Five technical failures and 5 microcatheter crossover cases were excluded. BO group (n = 46, age 72.8 y ± 9.0, gland volume 184 mL ± 83, 42% in retention) and EH group (n = 73, age 76.0 y ± 9.0, gland volume 190 mL ± 116, 44% in retention) were compared using procedural metrics (excluding 30 EH learning-curve cases); symptomatic improvement at 3, 6, and 12 months after PAE; voiding trial success; and adverse events (reported used Clavien-Dindo classification).
Procedural and fluoroscopy times were lower in the BO group (n = 46) vs EH group (n = 43) (152.0 min ± 34.0 vs 172.8 min ± 47.9, P < .02; 37.8 min ± 12.9 vs 50.3 min ± 18.9, P < .001). Collaterals coiled, contrast material used, and injected particle volume were similar for both groups (P = NS). International Prostate Symptom Score improvement was similar for BO group (n = 25) (before PAE 23.5 ± 6.5, 12 months after PAE 7.6 ± 6.8) and EH group (n = 30) (before PAE 20.9 ± 5.9, 12 months after PAE 6.6 ± 5.2) (P = NS). Quality-of-life improvements were also similar (BO: before PAE 4.5 ± 1.2, 12 months after PAE 1.4 ± 0.9; EH: before PAE 4.1 ± 1.0, 12 months after PAE 0.9 ± 0.7), as were 12-month postvoid residual improvements, voiding trial failure rates (EH 12%, BO 8%), and adverse event rates (grade II, III: EH 15%, BO 11%) (P = NS for all).
BO microcatheter use in PAE did not affect injected particle volume, contrast material use, or protective coiling and did not impact symptomatic improvement, postvoid residual improvement, voiding trial success, or adverse events after PAE. Lower procedure and fluoroscopy times with BO microcatheter were likely due to selection bias.
比较前列腺动脉栓塞术(PAE)中使用球囊闭塞(BO)与端孔(EH)微导管的手术指标和临床改善情况,这些患者患有良性前列腺增生。
回顾性分析了 2013 年 4 月至 2018 年 8 月期间 129 例接受 100-300μm Embosphere 微球治疗的患者。微导管的选择是非随机的,基于前列腺动脉解剖结构。排除了 5 例技术失败和 5 例微导管交叉病例。BO 组(n=46,年龄 72.8y±9.0,腺体体积 184mL±83,保留率 42%)和 EH 组(n=73,年龄 76.0y±9.0,腺体体积 190mL±116,保留率 44%)使用手术指标进行比较(不包括 30 例 EH 学习曲线病例);PAE 后 3、6 和 12 个月的症状改善;排尿试验成功率;以及不良事件(报告使用 Clavien-Dindo 分类)。
BO 组(n=46)的手术和透视时间低于 EH 组(n=43)(152.0min±34.0 vs 172.8min±47.9,P<.02;37.8min±12.9 vs 50.3min±18.9,P<.001)。两组的侧支栓塞、造影剂使用和注入颗粒体积相似(P=NS)。BO 组(n=25)(PAE 前 23.5±6.5,PAE 后 12 个月 7.6±6.8)和 EH 组(n=30)(PAE 前 20.9±5.9,PAE 后 12 个月 6.6±5.2)的国际前列腺症状评分改善情况相似(P=NS)。生活质量改善情况也相似(BO:PAE 前 4.5±1.2,PAE 后 12 个月 1.4±0.9;EH:PAE 前 4.1±1.0,PAE 后 12 个月 0.9±0.7),12 个月后残余尿量改善、排尿试验失败率(EH 12%,BO 8%)和不良事件发生率(II 级、III 级:EH 15%,BO 11%)也相似(P=NS 均)。
PAE 中使用 BO 微导管不会影响注入颗粒体积、造影剂使用或保护性栓塞,也不会影响症状改善、残余尿量改善、排尿试验成功率或 PAE 后的不良事件。BO 微导管较低的手术和透视时间可能是由于选择偏倚。