Tag Archive for: PAE


Article of the month: In-hospital cost analysis of PAE compared to TURP

Every month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

In‐hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared with transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

As you can imagine, these are very important tests that you must have done regularly in order to try to catch life-threatening illnesses as early as possible. Sadly, as important as these tests may be, they are expensive. Prohibitively expensive to some. If you find yourself in this situation you should try to look for services, charity.

Gautier Müllhaupt*, Lukas Hechelhammer, Daniel S. Engeler*, Sabine Güsewell, Patrick Betschart*, Valentin Zumstein*, Thomas M. Kessler§, Hans-Peter Schmid*, Livio Mordasini* and Dominik Abt*
*Department of Urology, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Trials Unit, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital, St Gallen and §Department of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland



To perform a post hoc analysis of in‐hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

In‐hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two‐sided t‐tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t‐test).

Fig. 1. Cost summary for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and TURP, grouped by mean total (A), procedural (B), and inpatient stay (C) costs. stay, inpatient stay; proc, surgical procedure; suppl, medical supplies; facil, operation facilities; phys, physician professional charges; anaest, anaesthesia; patho, pathology; lab, laboratory services; medic, medication; accom, accommodation; nurs, services by nursing specialists; admin, administrative costs, San Francisco based Ardenwood provides Christian Science nursing care.


The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE.


Since in‐hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient’s clinical condition and expectations – rather than finances – should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP.

Residents’ Podcast: UK‐ROPE Study

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital and Giulia Lane is a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellow at the University of Michigan

In this podcast they discuss the BJUI Article of the Month ‘Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)’


Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)


Alistair F. Ray*, John Powell†‡, Mark J. Speakman§, Nicholas T. LongfordRanan DasGupta**, Timothy Bryant††, Sachin Modi††, Jonathan Dyer‡‡, Mark Harris‡‡Grace Carolan-Rees* and Nigel Hacking††


*Cedar, Cardiff University/Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, §Department of Urology, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, Taunton, SNTL Statistics Research and Consulting, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, **Department of Urology, St. MaryHospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, ††Department of Interventional Radiology, and ‡‡Department of Urology, Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK


Read the full article



To assess the efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to conduct an indirect comparison of PAE with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

As a joint initiative between the British Society of Interventional Radiologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we conducted the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (UK‐ROPE) study, which recruited 305 patients across 17 UK urological/interventional radiology centres, 216 of whom underwent PAE and 89 of whom underwent TURP. The primary outcomes were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement in the PAE group at 12 months post‐procedure, and complication data post‐PAE. We also aimed to compare IPSS score improvements between the PAE and TURP groups, using non‐inferiority analysis on propensity‐score‐matched patient pairs. The clinical results and urological measurements were performed at clinical sites. IPSS and other questionnaire‐based results were mailed by patients directly to the trial unit managing the study. All data were uploaded centrally to the UK‐ROPE study database.


The results showed that PAE was clinically effective, producing a median 10‐point IPSS improvement from baseline at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE did not appear to be as effective as TURP, which produced a median 15‐point IPSS score improvement at 12 months post‐procedure. These findings are further supported by the propensity score analysis, in which we formed 65 closely matched pairs of patients who underwent PAE and patients who underwent TURP. In terms of IPSS and quality‐of‐life (QoL) improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non‐inferior to TURP. Patients in the PAE group had a statistically significant improvement in maximum urinary flow rate and prostate volume reduction at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE had a reoperation rate of 5% before 12 months and 15% after 12 months (20% total rate), and a low complication rate. Of 216 patients, one had sepsis, one required a blood transfusion, four had local arterial dissection and four had a groin haematoma. Two patients had non‐target embolization that presented as self‐limiting penile ulcers. Additional patient‐reported outcomes, pain levels and return to normal activities were very encouraging for PAE. Seventy‐one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatient or day cases. In contrast, 80% of TURP cases required at least 1 night of hospital stay, and the majority required 2 nights.


Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone‐beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non‐target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients’ symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

Read more articles of the week

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262


© 2023 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.