Evidence Hub

Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Standard Surgical Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

V. Zumstein, P. Betschart, M. Vetterlein, L. Kluth, L. Hechelhammer, L. Mordasini, D. Engeler, T. Kessler et al.

European Urology Focus, 2019

708 participants · 111 citations

Abstract

CONTEXT

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-LUTS) despite a lack of high-level evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of PAE versus established surgical therapies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Embase, and York CRD were searched up to June 23, 2018. Only comparative studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Five studies including 708 patients met the selection criteria. Risk of bias was rated high for most of the studies. Mean reduction in the International Prostate Symptom Score was lower after PAE compared with standard surgical therapies (mean difference 3.80 points [95% confidence interval: 2.77-4.83]; p<0.001). PAE was less efficient regarding improvements in all functional parameters assessed including maximum urinary flow, post void residual, and reduction of prostate volume. In contrast, patient-reported erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function 5) was better after PAE and significantly fewer adverse events occurred after PAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately strong evidence confirms efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH-LUTS in the short term. Significant advantages regarding safety and sexual function, but clear…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 708 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free