Nicholas Brown, Anthony Kiosoglous, Stephanie Castree, Sepinoud Firouzmand, Rhiannon McBean, Duncan G Walker, Sean Wallace, Boon Kua, Troy Gianduzzo, Rachel C Esler, Peter Campbell, Joseph Schoeman, John Yaxley
{"title":"前列腺栓塞作为治疗前列腺增生的一线疗法，与药物治疗前列腺增生的随机对照试验\"（P-EASY ADVANCE）：前列腺栓塞与药物治疗前列腺增生的随机对照试验。","authors":"Nicholas Brown, Anthony Kiosoglous, Stephanie Castree, Sepinoud Firouzmand, Rhiannon McBean, Duncan G Walker, Sean Wallace, Boon Kua, Troy Gianduzzo, Rachel C Esler, Peter Campbell, Joseph Schoeman, John Yaxley","doi":"10.1111/bju.16479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare prostate artery embolisation (PAE) to the combination of tamsulosin and dutasteride therapy as a potential first-line therapy for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in treatment-naïve patients in the 'Prostate Embolisation AS first-line therapY compAred to meDication in treatment naïVe men with prostAte eNlargement, a randomised ControllEd trial' (P-EASY ADVANCE).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 39 men with enlarged prostates, moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and obstructed/equivocal urodynamic studies (UDS), and who had no prior treatment for BPH, were randomised to receive either combined medical therapy with tamsulosin and dutasteride (medication) or PAE. Follow-up UDS, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry and ultrasound were performed at short- to medium-term intervals following interventions and compared to baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The medication and PAE treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics, including prostate volumes (87.8 and 85.4 mL respectively), maximum urinary flow rate (Q<sub>max</sub>; 6.5 and 6.6 mL/s, respectively), IPSS (19.5 and 21, respectively) and obstructed UDS (79% and 74%, respectively). Both interventions improved voiding and bladder outflow obstruction from baseline, with more patients unobstructed after PAE (63%) compared to medication (28%) (P = 0.03). PAE patients had significantly greater reductions in prostate size (P < 0.001), incomplete emptying (P = 0.002), total IPSS (P = 0.032), Q<sub>max</sub> (P = 0.006) and quality of life (P = 0.001). Altered ejaculation, erectile dysfunction and nausea were more common in the medication group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prostate artery embolisation was more effective than combined medical therapy at reducing urinary obstruction, decreasing prostate volume and improving LUTS in patients with BPH who had not previously been treated. This is the first randomised control study to compare PAE and combined medical therapy in exclusively treatment-naïve patients and raises the potential of PAE as an alternative early treatment option for BPH. Further randomised comparative trials are planned to further validate the role of PAE in mitigating obstructive BPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The 'Prostate Embolisation AS first-line therapY compAred to meDication in treatment naïVe men with prostAte eNlargement, a randomised ControllEd trial' (P-EASY ADVANCE): a randomised controlled trial of prostate embolisation vs medication for BPH.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Brown, Anthony Kiosoglous, Stephanie Castree, Sepinoud Firouzmand, Rhiannon McBean, Duncan G Walker, Sean Wallace, Boon Kua, Troy Gianduzzo, Rachel C Esler, Peter Campbell, Joseph Schoeman, John Yaxley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bju.16479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare prostate artery embolisation (PAE) to the combination of tamsulosin and dutasteride therapy as a potential first-line therapy for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in treatment-naïve patients in the 'Prostate Embolisation AS first-line therapY compAred to meDication in treatment naïVe men with prostAte eNlargement, a randomised ControllEd trial' (P-EASY ADVANCE).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 39 men with enlarged prostates, moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and obstructed/equivocal urodynamic studies (UDS), and who had no prior treatment for BPH, were randomised to receive either combined medical therapy with tamsulosin and dutasteride (medication) or PAE. Follow-up UDS, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry and ultrasound were performed at short- to medium-term intervals following interventions and compared to baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The medication and PAE treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics, including prostate volumes (87.8 and 85.4 mL respectively), maximum urinary flow rate (Q<sub>max</sub>; 6.5 and 6.6 mL/s, respectively), IPSS (19.5 and 21, respectively) and obstructed UDS (79% and 74%, respectively). Both interventions improved voiding and bladder outflow obstruction from baseline, with more patients unobstructed after PAE (63%) compared to medication (28%) (P = 0.03). PAE patients had significantly greater reductions in prostate size (P < 0.001), incomplete emptying (P = 0.002), total IPSS (P = 0.032), Q<sub>max</sub> (P = 0.006) and quality of life (P = 0.001). Altered ejaculation, erectile dysfunction and nausea were more common in the medication group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prostate artery embolisation was more effective than combined medical therapy at reducing urinary obstruction, decreasing prostate volume and improving LUTS in patients with BPH who had not previously been treated. This is the first randomised control study to compare PAE and combined medical therapy in exclusively treatment-naïve patients and raises the potential of PAE as an alternative early treatment option for BPH. Further randomised comparative trials are planned to further validate the role of PAE in mitigating obstructive BPH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJU International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJU International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16479\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16479","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The 'Prostate Embolisation AS first-line therapY compAred to meDication in treatment naïVe men with prostAte eNlargement, a randomised ControllEd trial' (P-EASY ADVANCE): a randomised controlled trial of prostate embolisation vs medication for BPH.
Objective: To compare prostate artery embolisation (PAE) to the combination of tamsulosin and dutasteride therapy as a potential first-line therapy for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in treatment-naïve patients in the 'Prostate Embolisation AS first-line therapY compAred to meDication in treatment naïVe men with prostAte eNlargement, a randomised ControllEd trial' (P-EASY ADVANCE).
Patients and methods: A total of 39 men with enlarged prostates, moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and obstructed/equivocal urodynamic studies (UDS), and who had no prior treatment for BPH, were randomised to receive either combined medical therapy with tamsulosin and dutasteride (medication) or PAE. Follow-up UDS, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry and ultrasound were performed at short- to medium-term intervals following interventions and compared to baseline.
Results: The medication and PAE treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics, including prostate volumes (87.8 and 85.4 mL respectively), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax; 6.5 and 6.6 mL/s, respectively), IPSS (19.5 and 21, respectively) and obstructed UDS (79% and 74%, respectively). Both interventions improved voiding and bladder outflow obstruction from baseline, with more patients unobstructed after PAE (63%) compared to medication (28%) (P = 0.03). PAE patients had significantly greater reductions in prostate size (P < 0.001), incomplete emptying (P = 0.002), total IPSS (P = 0.032), Qmax (P = 0.006) and quality of life (P = 0.001). Altered ejaculation, erectile dysfunction and nausea were more common in the medication group.
Conclusion: Prostate artery embolisation was more effective than combined medical therapy at reducing urinary obstruction, decreasing prostate volume and improving LUTS in patients with BPH who had not previously been treated. This is the first randomised control study to compare PAE and combined medical therapy in exclusively treatment-naïve patients and raises the potential of PAE as an alternative early treatment option for BPH. Further randomised comparative trials are planned to further validate the role of PAE in mitigating obstructive BPH.
期刊介绍：
BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
