Prostatic artery occlusion versus prostatic artery embolisation for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: early results in a canine model

• Published in: British journal of radiology Vol. 95; no. 1136; p. 20220243
• Main Authors: Lucas-Cava, Vanesa, Sánchez-Margallo, Francisco Miguel, Dávila-Gómez, Luis, Lima-Rodríguez, Juan Rafael, Sun, Fei
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England The British Institute of Radiology 01-08-2022
• Subjects: Animals; Arteries; Dogs; Embolization, Therapeutic - methods; Humans; Ischemia - therapy; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - therapy; Male; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Hyperplasia - therapy; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0007-1285; 1748-880X
• DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220243

To compare the technical efficacy and safety between prostatic artery occlusion (PAO) with ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and prostatic artery embolizsation (PAE) with microspheres in a canine model.
17 adult male beagles underwent PAO (n = 7) with Onyx-18 or PAE (n = 10) with microspheres (300-500 µm). To evaluate the primary outcomes (technical efficacy and safety), MRI evaluations were performed immediately before and 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month after procedures to document prostate volume (PV); and all dogs were inspected for procedure-related complications during 1 month follow-up. The secondary outcomes included the prostate ischaemia size detected by MRI and recanalisation of prostatic artery by follow-up angiography. Differences between groups were statistically analysed.
Both procedures were bilaterally successful in all animals. Compared with PAE, the mean fluoroscopy time (23.80 vs 36.24 min, p = 0.014) and radiation dose (68.19 vs 125.26 mGy, p = 0.003) were significantly less in PAO procedure. The mean percentage of PV change significantly decreased in both groups at 2 weeks (30.71% vs  37.89%) and 1 month (56.41% %vs 55.56%) after PAO and PAE respectively), without significant differences between groups at either time point. No major complications were observed except one animal after PAO with transient haematuria and acute urinary retention. The mean prostate ischaemia induced by PAO was significant greater compared with PAE at 1 week (43.44% vs 18.91%, p=0.001). PAO with EVOH is technically feasible and with comparable efficacy and safety with PAE. There are possible benefits to PAO over PAE.
A new technical modification of the PAE consisting of the use of liquid embolic agent to occlude the prostatic artery trunk and its branches has been developed in pre-clinical study, showing to be an effective and safe procedure which can induce a significant prostate shrinkage for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients. In addition, the findings have showed a similar therapeutic effect comparable with the conventional PAE using microspheres.