Evidence Hub

Long-term outcomes after treatment with Optilume BPH: Four-year results from the EVEREST study

S. A. Kaplan, M. Pichardo, E. Rijo, G. Espino, R. R. Lay, R. Estrella

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2024

80 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to gather initial safety and efficacy data with the Optilume BPH Catheter System for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

A total of 80 men with moderate-to-severe LUTS secondary to BPH were enrolled and treated with the Optilume BPH Catheter System. Symptoms were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII). Improvement in urinary flow and relief of obstruction was evaluated by way of peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). Subjects were prospectively queried for adverse events at each study visit, and relatedness to the study device were evaluated by the investigators, as well as centrally adjudicated by the study principal investigator.

RESULTS

Previous reports of symptom improvement in this cohort were maintained through four-year followup, with a significant reduction in IPSS and IPSS quality of life maintained through four years (-12.1, -2.8, respectively). Clinically meaningful improvement in Qmax was maintained in the majority of subjects, with an average improvement from baseline of +5.6 mL/sec. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in the long-term followup period.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term followup through four years for subjects treated with the Optilume BPH Catheter System indicates durable outcomes in symptom improvement and functional…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 80 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