Dataset Information

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of improved transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate in high-risk patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and coronary artery disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This prospective study aimed to evaluate the safety of improved transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (iTUPKEP) in the perioperative period in high-risk patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and coronary artery disease.

Methods

Patients with BPH underwent surgical treatment with transurethral vapour resection of the prostate (TUVP) or iTUPKEP. Serum endothelin-1, cardiac troponin-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations were evaluated in the short term after surgery. The postvoid residual urine volume, maximum urinary flow rate, international prostate symptom score, and quality of life indicators were evaluated in the long term after surgery.

Results

Endothelin-1 concentrations were lower in the iTUPKEP group than in the TUVP group at 1 and 2 days postoperatively. The iTUPKEP group had lower cardiac troponin-I and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations at all time points postoperatively. The postvoid residual urine volume, international prostate symptom score, and quality of life values were lower, but the maximum urinary flow rate was higher, in the iTUPKEP group than in the TUVP group.

Conclusions

The iTUPKEP procedure has a smaller effect on vascular endothelial function compared with TUVP. Therefore, iTUPKEP may reduce the incidence of postoperative cardiovascular adverse events in high-risk patients with BPH and coronary artery disease.

SUBMITTER: Meng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647238 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate (B-TUEP) is recommended as a first-choice treatment for benign prostatic obstruction in prostates >80 ml. Differently, B-TUEP is only considered as an alternative option after TURP for smaller prostates (30-80 ml). The aim of our study is to assess the relation between prostate size and surgical outcomes after B-TUEP.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from 172 patients submitted to B-TUEP. Patients were segregated according to tertiles of prostate volume (PV) (≤60 ml, 61-110 ml, >110 ml). For each group we evaluated enucleation efficacy (enucleated weight/enucleation time), complication rates, urinary and sexual function parameters. Functional and sexual parameters were compared between groups at baseline, 1 and 3 months follow up. Descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression models tested the association between PV and postoperative complications/outcomes.ResultsOperative time and weight of enucleated adenomas increased along with prostate volumes (all p≤0.01). Enucleation efficacy was higher in men with PV >110 ml compared to other groups (p≤0.001). Length of hospital stay, catheterization time and rates of postoperative complications, such as transfusion and clot evacuation rates and bladder neck/urethral strictures, were comparable between groups. Urinary symptoms improved at 1-and 3-months in each group as compared to baseline evaluation (all p<0.01) but they did not differ according to PV. In each group maximum urinary flow and post-void residual volume significantly improved at 3 months compared to baseline (all p≤0.01), without differences according to PV. Sexual symptoms were similar between groups at each follow up assessment. At multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis, prostate volume was not associated with postoperative functional outcomes and complications. Conversely, patient's comorbid status and antiplatelet/anticoagulation use were independently associated with postoperative complications.ConclusionAccording to our findings, B-TUEP should be considered a "size independent procedure" as it can provide symptom relief in men with prostates of all sizes with the same efficacy and safety profile.

Project description:ObjectivesOveractive bladder (OAB) symptoms are often encountered in patients after transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) or transurethral incision of the prostate (TUI-P) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Either antimuscarinics or β-3 agonist has been found effective in relieving OAB symptoms. However, urologists usually do not prescribe such medication immediately after TUR-P or TUI-P to avoid an increase in postvoid residual and risk of urinary tract infection. If OAB medication can be used and adverse events (AEs) can be reduced to minimum, patients' quality of life after bladder outlet obstruction surgery could be improved. This study compared the safety and efficacy between solifenacin and mirabegron in men undergoing TUR-P or TUI-P.Materials and methodsThis prospective, randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of OAB medication on the reduction in Urgency Severity Score (USS), OAB Symptoms Score (OABSS), International Prostate Symptom Score, and urgency urinary incontinence episodes in men with BPO undergoing surgical intervention. All patients could void smoothly after catheter removal and were randomly received daily solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron 50 mg, or no interventions for 4 weeks. At 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively, participants' OAB symptoms and AEs were evaluated.ResultsA total of 57 men were enrolled in this study with a mean age of 70.8 ± 6.1 years. At 2 weeks postoperatively, USS (1.56 ± 1.72 vs. 2.39 ± 1.72 vs. 2.26 ± 1.73, P < 0.011) and OABSS (5.33 ± 3.65 vs. 7.67 ± 4.19 vs. 8.58 ± 4.31, P < 0.000) were significantly reduced in patients taking solifenacin, mirabegron, or control, respectively. Two patients in the solifenacin group developed urinary retention. However, the changes of variables at 4 weeks postoperatively were insignificant among the three groups.ConclusionSolifenacin and mirabegron are two different drug classes both equally effective in treating immediate OAB symptoms after TUR-P or TUI-P. However, OAB symptoms could be relieved at 4 weeks without any medication. Considering AEs, β-3 agonist has a more favorable safety profile than antimuscarinics.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of patient reported and functional outcomes. DESIGN:Randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. SETTING:Urology and radiology departments of a Swiss tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS:103 patients aged ?40 years with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomised between 11 February 2014 and 24 May 2017; 48 and 51 patients reached the primary endpoint 12 weeks after PAE and TURP, respectively. INTERVENTIONS:PAE performed with 250-400 ?m microspheres under local anaesthesia versus monopolar TURP performed under spinal or general anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Primary outcome was change in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 weeks after surgery; a difference of less than 3 points between treatments was defined as non-inferiority for PAE and tested with a one sided t test. Secondary outcomes included further questionnaires, functional measures, magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events; changes from baseline to 12 weeks were compared between treatments with two sided tests for superiority. RESULTS:Mean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 12 weeks was -9.23 points after PAE and -10.77 points after TURP. Although the difference was less than 3 points (1.54 points in favour of TURP (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 4.52)), non-inferiority of PAE could not be shown (P=0.17). None of the patient reported secondary outcomes differed significantly between treatments when tested for superiority; IPSS also did not differ significantly (P=0.31). At 12 weeks, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding changes in maximum rate of urinary flow (5.19 v 15.34 mL/s; difference 10.15 (95% confidence interval -14.67 to -5.63); P<0.001), postvoid residual urine (-86.36 v -199.98 mL; 113.62 (39.25 to 187.98); P=0.003), prostate volume (-12.17 v -30.27 mL; 18.11 (10.11 to 26.10); P<0.001), and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies (56% v 93% shift towards less obstructive category; P=0.003). Fewer adverse events occurred after PAE than after TURP (36 v 70 events; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:The improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia seen 12 weeks after PAE is close to that after TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP but has disadvantages regarding functional outcomes, which should be considered when selecting patients. Further comparative study findings, including longer follow-up, should be evaluated before PAE can be considered as a routine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054013.

Project description:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.