Observational studyCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Venous Leak Embolization Results in Clinical Improvement of Patients with Mixed Arterio-Venous Erectile Dysfunction Not Responding to Arterial Revascularization Alone.
Observational study in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midterm Outcomes of Venous Leak Embolization in Patients with Venogenic Erectile Dysfunction Unresponsive to Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitors.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Endovascular therapy for erectile dysfunction: insights from more than 1000 treatments.CVIR endovascular · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of dyslipidemia-induced erectile dysfunction: a narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Commentary on: Venous Leak Embolization Results in Clinical Improvement of Patients with Mixed Arterio-Venous Erectile Dysfunction Not Responding to Arterial Revascularization Alone.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- A narrative review of endovascular treatment in addressing arterial and venous erectile dysfunction.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the safety and efficacy of additional venous leak embolization after an initial arterial revascularization to treat patients with combined arteriogenic and venogenic erectile dysfunction (ED). MATERIALS AND
methodsSingle-center observational study from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022, including 26 patients with ED resistant to phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors (PDE5i) and without significant clinical benefit after arterial revascularization of erection-related arteries. Additional treatment with venous leak embolization was performed 458 ± 424 days after arterial revascularization. Arterial obstruction and venous leak were verified based on color Doppler flow analysis, computed tomography angiography, and computed tomography cavernosography. The primary safety endpoint was any major adverse event 6 weeks after the procedure. The primary feasibility endpoint was defined as an IIEF-6 (International Index of Erectile Function-6) score improvement of ≥ 4 points at 6-week follow-up post intervention.
resultsProcedural success was achieved in all patients with no major adverse events on follow-up. The primary feasibility endpoint at 6-week follow-up was reached with 3/26 (11.5%) of patients following arterial revascularization only. Six weeks after additional venous embolization, the primary feasibility endpoint was reached in 17/26 (65.4%) of patients.
conclusionVenous leak embolization yields additional clinical improvement and treatment potential in patients with vasculogenic ED not responding to PDE5i due to mixed arterio-venous disease and insufficient clinical improvement after arterial revascularization alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39638972What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.