Martínez-Piñeiro L, Cortés R, Cuervo E, López-Tello J, Cisneros J, Martínez-Piñeiro J A
Service of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain.
Eur Urol. 1998 Oct;34(4):350-4. doi: 10.1159/000019754.
To compare the effectiveness of intracavernous administration of sodium nitroprusside and prostaglandin E1 to induce penile erection in men with erectile dysfunction.
100 patients with erectile dysfunction entered the study prospectively. As part of the diagnostic workup, each patient received an intracavernous injection of 20 microg prostaglandin E1 and a second injection of 600 microg sodium nitroprusside 1-7 days later. A tourniquet was placed at the base of the penis before each injection. The data recorded included time required to initiate tumescence, local and systemic side effects, objective and subjective quality of erections, duration of tumescence and patient satisfaction by means of a personal questionnaire.
Prostaglandin E1 induced better overall responses than sodium nitroprusside, the difference being almost significant (p = 0.055). The overall duration of erections was also significantly longer with prostaglandin E1 (mean 81.3 min) than with sodium nitroprusside (mean 65.4 min; p < 0.04). 67% of the patients considered the erections induced with prostaglandin E1 to be of better quality than those with sodium nitroprusside, and only 11% stated that sodium nitroprusside was superior. Side effects were minimal with both drugs, the most frequent side effect being systemic hypotension, which was induced by sodium nitroprusside in 7% of the patients.
The moderate risk of systemic hypotension and the lower potency of sodium nitroprusside to induce erections compared to prostaglandin E1 rules out sodium nitroprusside as a routine alternative intracavernous drug in men with erectile dysfunction at the doses employed. Sodium nitroprusside, however, could be used in patients who have intolerance or penile pain with intracavernous prostaglandin E1.
比较海绵体内注射硝普钠与前列腺素E1诱导勃起功能障碍男性阴茎勃起的有效性。
100例勃起功能障碍患者前瞻性地进入本研究。作为诊断检查的一部分,每位患者先海绵体内注射20微克前列腺素E1,1至7天后再注射600微克硝普钠。每次注射前在阴茎根部放置止血带。记录的数据包括勃起开始所需时间、局部和全身副作用、勃起的客观和主观质量、勃起持续时间以及通过个人问卷得出的患者满意度。
前列腺素E1诱导的总体反应优于硝普钠,差异几乎具有统计学意义(p = 0.055)。前列腺素E1诱导的勃起总体持续时间(平均81.3分钟)也显著长于硝普钠(平均65.4分钟;p < 0.04)。67%的患者认为前列腺素E1诱导的勃起质量优于硝普钠,只有11%的患者表示硝普钠更优。两种药物的副作用均最小,最常见的副作用是全身性低血压,7%的患者因硝普钠出现此副作用。
与前列腺素E1相比,硝普钠导致全身性低血压的风险适中且诱导勃起的效力较低,因此在所使用的剂量下,硝普钠不能作为勃起功能障碍男性常规的海绵体内用药替代药物。然而,硝普钠可用于对海绵体内注射前列腺素E1不耐受或出现阴茎疼痛的患者。