Dataset Information

Patients' perspective on prostatic artery embolization: A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim was to describe the patients' experience of undergoing prostatic artery embolization.

Methods

A retrospective qualitative interview study was undertaken with 15 patients of mean age 73 years who had undergone prostatic artery embolization with a median duration of 210 min at two medium sized hospitals in Sweden. The reasons for conducting prostatic artery embolization were clean intermittent catheterization (n = 4), lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 10) or haematuria (n = 1). Data were collected through individual, semi-structured telephone interviews 1-12 months after treatment and analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Four categories with sub-categories were formulated to describe the results: a diverse experience; ability to control the situation; resumption of everyday activities and range of opinions regarding efficacy of outcomes. Overall, the patients described the procedure as painless, easy and interesting and reported that while the procedure can be stressful, a calm atmosphere contributed to achieving a good experience. Limitations on access to reliable information before, during and after the procedure were highlighted as a major issue. Practical ideas for improving patient comfort during the procedure were suggested. Improved communications between treatment staff and patients were also highlighted. Most patients could resume everyday activities, some felt tired and bruising caused unnecessary worry for a few. Regarding functional outcome, some patients described substantial improvement in urine flow while others were satisfied with regaining undisturbed night sleep. Those with less effect were considering transurethral resection of the prostate as a future option. Self-enrolment to the treatment and long median operation time may have influenced the results.

Conclusions

From the patients' perspective, prostatic artery embolization is a well-tolerated method for treating benign prostate hyperplacia.

SUBMITTER: Holm A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7958185 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo present and evaluate an approach for reduction of utilization of steep oblique angiographic projections during prostatic artery embolization (PAE).MethodsSingle-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent bilateral PAE (from October 2018 to November 2019) and in whom it was possible to embolize PA of at least one pelvic side utilizing anteroposterior projections only (AP-PAE group), with the following techniques: Identification of the origin of PA on anteroposterior angiographic views. Utilization of anatomic landmarks from the planning computed tomographic angiography. Distal advancement of the angiographic catheter or microcatheter in the anterior division of internal iliac artery. Gentle probing with microguidewire at the expected site of origin of the PA. The AP-PAE approach was initially applied to all PAE patients during the study period and when this approach failed, additional steep oblique projections were acquired; patients who underwent bilateral PAE, with both anteroposterior and oblique projections for both pelvic sides, formed the standard PAE (S-PAE) group. The AP-PAE group was compared with S-PAE group in terms of baseline clinical and anatomic features, technical/procedural aspects and outcomes.ResultsForty-six patients (92 pelvic sides) were studied. AP-PAE was feasible in 12/46 patients (26.0%): unilateral AP-PAE in 9/46 patients (19.5%); bilateral AP-PAE in 3/46 patients (6.5%). AP-PAE group had larger prostates (p = 0.047) and larger PAs (p < 0.001). Body mass index (BMI) and other baseline features were comparable between the two groups (mean BMI, AP-PAE group: 27.9 ± 3.6, S-PAE group: 27.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.451). Mean fluoroscopy time and dose area product were lower in AP-PAE group (46.3 vs 57.9 min, p = 0.084 and 22,924.9 vs 35,800.4 μGy.m2, p = 0.018, respectively). Three months post PAE, comparable clinical success rates (11/12 vs 31/34, p = 0.959) and mean International Prostate Symptom Score reduction (60.2% vs 58.1%, p = 0.740) were observed for AP-PAE and for S-PAE group, respectively. No major complications were encountered.ConclusionAP-PAE is associated with significant reduction in radiation exposure and appears to be feasible, safe and effective, but it can be applied in a relatively small percentage of patients.