Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107451›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Comparing embolic particles for prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Tiago Bilhim, Nuno Vasco Costa, Daniel Torres, Serhat Akış, Marta Alves, Ana Luisa Papoila

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tiago BilhimInterventional Radiology Unit, Curry Cabral Hospital, Unidade Local de Saúde São José; Centro Clínico Académico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. tiagobilhim@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-8474
Nuno Vasco CostaInterventional Radiology Unit, Curry Cabral Hospital, Unidade Local de Saúde São José; Centro Clínico Académico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Daniel TorresInterventional Radiology Unit, Curry Cabral Hospital, Unidade Local de Saúde São José; Centro Clínico Académico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Serhat AkışDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Türkiye.
Marta AlvesEpidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research Center, Unidade Local de Saúde São José; Centro Clínico Académico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Ana Luisa PapoilaEpidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research Center, Unidade Local de Saúde São José; Centro Clínico Académico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCompare the safety and efficacy of polyvinyl alcohol particles (PVA) versus trisacryl gelatin microspheres (Embospheres) versus hydrogel microspheres coated with polyzene-F (Embozenes) for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) to treat patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND

methodsA single-center prospective cohort study from 2019 to 2023, including patients with international prostate symptom score (IPSS) ≥ 15 and/or quality of life score (QoL) ≥ 4. Allocation to embolic agents was performed chronologically: 100-300 µm PVA (n = 53), followed by 300-500 µm Embospheres (n = 50), and finally, 400 µm Embozenes (n = 50). All patients were evaluated at baseline and at 1 and 6 months after PAE with IPSS/QoL; peak urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume, and prostate volume with ultrasound and prostate-specific antigen. Adverse events and the need for prostatic re-interventions were assessed.

resultsThere were no significant baseline differences between the three groups except for patient age (62.5 years PVA; 66.1 years Embospheres and 66.6 years Embozenes; p = 0.019). There were no major adverse events and no differences between groups regarding minor adverse events. All outcome measures improved significantly from baseline, with no significant differences between groups. Mean ± standard deviation IPSS/QoL improvement at 6 months: -10.7 ± 7.9/-2.2 ± 1.7 PVA; -10.4 ± 7.3/-2.0 ± 1.5 Embospheres; -10.4 ± 7.0/-2.2 ± 1.6 Embozenes (p = 0.987). Re-intervention rates after 6 months: 9% (n = 5/53) PVA; 14% (n = 7/50) Embospheres; 8% (n = 4/50) Embozenes (p = 0.591).

conclusionsPAE with PVA particles, Embospheres, and Embozenes is equally safe and effective in treating BPH-related lower urinary tract symptoms. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This is the first prospective study showing equivalence between the most frequently used embolic agents for prostatic artery embolization. KEY POINTS: Different particles can be used interchangeably for prostatic artery embolization. The improvements in measured metrics were the same between groups, with no differences in adverse events. The need for prostatic medication and re-intervention rates were the same at 1 and 6 months after embolization.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticLower Urinary Tract SymptomsPolyvinyl AlcoholProstateProstatic HyperplasiaAcrylic ResinsAgedGelatinHumansMaleMicrospheresMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeAcrylic ResinsGelatinPolyvinyl Alcoholtrisacryl gelatin microspheresLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)Polyvinyl alcohol particles (PVA)Prostatic artery embolization (PAE), Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)Trisacryl gelatin microspheres (Embospheres)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.