Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access

Technical Results

Shivank Bhatia, Sardis H. Harward, Vishal K. Sinha, Govindarajan Narayanan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution. Results: Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively). Conclusions: TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Prostate
Arteries
Safety
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Urinary Retention
Learning Curve
Fluoroscopy
Prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access : Technical Results. / Bhatia, Shivank; Harward, Sardis H.; Sinha, Vishal K.; Narayanan, Govindarajan.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 01.11.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{354812e3ab344c00b0ee8302903322fd,
title = "Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access: Technical Results",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution. Results: Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6{\%}) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9{\%}) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8{\%}) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively). Conclusions: TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.",
author = "Shivank Bhatia and Harward, {Sardis H.} and Sinha, {Vishal K.} and Govindarajan Narayanan",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2017.02.029",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access

T2 - Technical Results

AU - Bhatia, Shivank

AU - Harward, Sardis H.

AU - Sinha, Vishal K.

AU - Narayanan, Govindarajan

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution. Results: Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively). Conclusions: TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.

AB - Purpose: To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution. Results: Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively). Conclusions: TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017157501&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017157501&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.02.029

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.02.029

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

ER -