Coil-out: comparing outcomes after prostate artery embolization with and without endovascular coiling

TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness of prostate artery embolization with and without additional coiling, finding that embolization alone provides better symptom improvement.

Contribution

The study provides new evidence that particle embolization alone is more effective than adjunctive coiling for prostate artery embolization.

Findings

The Standard group showed greater IPSS reduction at both 1–5 and 9–15 months compared to the Coil-out group.

QOL/Bother improvement was greater in the Standard group at 9–15 months.

Procedure times were longer in the Standard group, while fluoroscopy times were longer in the Coil-out group.

Abstract

This retrospective study evaluates post-procedural symptom score changes after prostate artery embolization (PAE) with (Coil-out) and without (Standard) adjunctive prostate artery coiling after particle embolization. Changes in IPSS, QOL/Bother, and SHIM-IIEF V are reported at 1–5- and 9–15-month intervals. 573 procedures were reviewed, and 317 patients were included with a mean age of 72.1 years. Results favored the Standard group with greater IPSS reduction at 1–5 (-12.2 vs. -9.9, p = 0.018) and 9–15 months (-12.5 vs. -7.6, p = 0.018), and greater QOL/Bother improvement in the Standard group at 9–15 months (-2.8 vs. -1.8, p = 0.014). Procedure times were longer in the Standard group (186 vs. 173 min; p = 0.039), whereas fluoroscopy times were longer in the Coil-out group (48.3 vs. 44.8 min; p = 0.014). Though limited by retrospective nature and lack of longer-term follow-up, these results support particle embolization alone over adjunctive coil embolization for PAE.

Figures