One‐year outcomes after prostate artery embolization versus laser enucleation: A network meta‐analysis

• Published in: BJUI compass Vol. 5; no. 2; pp. 189 - 206
• Main Authors: Bhatia, Ansh, Porto, Joao Gabriel, Maini, Aneesha, Langade, Deepak, Herrmann, Thomas R. W., Shah, Hemendra Navinchandra, Bhatia, Shivank
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.03.2024; Wiley
• Subjects: Anticoagulants; benign prostatic hyperplasia; complications; Embolization; endoscopic enucleation of prostate; enlarged prostate; holmium laser enucleation of prostate; Hyperplasia; Lasers; Magnetic resonance imaging; minimally invasive surgical therapy; prostate artery embolization; Prostate cancer; Surgery; Brazil; Switzerland; China; Egypt; complications; endoscopic enucleation of prostate; enlarged prostate; minimally invasive surgical therapy; holmium laser enucleation of prostate; prostate artery embolization; benign prostatic hyperplasia
• ISSN: 2688-4526; 2688-4526
• DOI: 10.1002/bco2.302

Background Although holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size‐independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post‐operative and short‐term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta‐analysis was performed following PRISMA‐N‐guidelines. Post‐operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post‐void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared. Results Qualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: −2.21: 95%CI: (−10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: −0.22:95%CI: (−1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (−59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1‐year follow‐up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (−1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (−1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (−32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (−2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP‐OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)]. Conclusion HoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long‐term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE.