Role of Coil Embolization during Prostatic Artery Embolization: Incidence, Indications, and Safety Profile^{(star, open)}

Purpose: To determine if coil embolization is a safe adjunctive measure to prevent nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PAE with coil embolization (cPAE) or without coil embolization (nPAE) between January 2014 and June 2016 was conducted. Adverse events, identified in accordance with SIR guidelines, and procedural variables were compared between the 2 cohorts. Results: Of 122 patients, 32 (26.2%) underwent coil embolization in 39 arteries, with coils placed to prevent nontarget embolization (n = 36), treat prostatic artery extravasation (n = 2), and occlude an intraprostatic arteriovenous fistula (n = 1). Compared with nPAE, cPAE had a nonsignificant increase in dose area product (64,516 μGy·m² vs 52,100 μGy·m², P = .053) but significantly longer procedure (160.1 min vs 137.1 min, P = .022) and fluoroscopy (62.9 min vs 46.1 min, P = .023) times. One major complication (urosepsis) occurred in each group (cPAE, 1/32 [3.1%]; nPAE, 1/80 [1.3%]). Both cases resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. A minor ischemic complication (1/32 [3.1%]) occurred in a patient with coil embolization, which manifested as white discoloration of the glans penis and resolved with topical therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in major and minor complications between cohorts at 1-month and 3-month follow-up visits. Conclusions: Although coil embolization leads to increases in procedure and fluoroscopy times, it is a safe adjunctive technique to occlude communications between the prostatic artery and pelvic vasculature to potentially prevent nontarget embolization.