Primary organic versus primary psychogenic erectile dysfunction: Findings from a real-life cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND

Erectile dysfunction aetiology has been historically identified as organic, psychogenic and mixed.

OBJECTIVES

To stratify and compare a cohort of patients seeking medical help for erectile dysfunction for the first time according to the newly proposed binary classification of the European Association of Urology guidelines: 'primary organic' versus 'primary psychogenic'.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Complete data from 2009 consecutive patients presenting for erectile dysfunction were analysed. All patients completed the International Index of Erectile Function at baseline. According to the presence of erectile dysfunction-related risk factors indexed by the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health, patients were categorised as having primary organic (≥1 risk factor) or primary psychogenic (0 risk factor) erectile dysfunction. Descriptive statistics compared the two groups. Linear regression analysis tested the association between the number of risk factors and erectile dysfunction severity. Locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method graphically explored the relationship between the number of risk factors for erectile dysfunction and the International Index of Erectile Function domain scores.

RESULTS

Median (interquartile range) age at first presentation was 50 (39-61) years. Of all, 1632 (86.2%) and 377 (13.8%) were identified as having primary organic and primary psychogenic erectile dysfunction, respectively. Overall, 1488 (74.1%) patients were >40 years of age; in this subgroup, the most frequent risk factors were age, hypertension (29%), active smoking (42%) and alcohol intake (25.1%). Median (interquartile range) International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function score was 15 (7-22). Primary organic erectile dysfunction patients depicted lower International Index of Erectile Function-sexual desire and International Index of Erectile Function-orgasmic function scores (all p ≤ 0.02), whilst groups did not differ in terms of International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function, International Index of Erectile Function-intercourse satisfaction and International Index of Erectile Function-overall satisfaction scores.

DISCUSSION

One out of nine patients complaining of erectile dysfunction depict criteria for primary psychogenic erectile dysfunction. Erectile function severity could be as severe as patients with organic erectile dysfunction. The single-centre-based cross-sectional nature of the study, raising the possibility of selection biases, is our main limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

One out of nine patients presenting for erectile dysfunction depict criteria suggestive for primary psychogenic erectile dysfunction in the real-life setting. Patients with primary psychogenic and primary organic erectile dysfunction have comparable erectile dysfunction severity, thus outlining the importance of a comprehensive and tailored management work-up in every patient seeking medical help for the first time.