Cargando…

Real-World Evidence of Prostatic Urethral Lift Confirms Pivotal Clinical Study Results: 2-Year Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study

Introduction: This study expands results from recent prostatic urethral lift (PUL) clinical trials by examining outcomes within a large unconstrained multicenter data set. Methods: Retrospective chart review and analysis of 1413 consecutive patients who received PUL in North America and Australia wa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eure, Gregg, Gange, Steven, Walter, Peter, Khan, Ansar, Chabert, Charles, Mueller, Thomas, Cozzi, Paul, Patel, Manish, Freedman, Sheldon, Chin, Peter, Ochs, Steven, Hirsh, Andrew, Trotter, Michael, Grier, Douglas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31115257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0167
Descripción
Sumario:Introduction: This study expands results from recent prostatic urethral lift (PUL) clinical trials by examining outcomes within a large unconstrained multicenter data set. Methods: Retrospective chart review and analysis of 1413 consecutive patients who received PUL in North America and Australia was performed. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-procedure for all nonurinary retention subjects (Group A) and retention subjects (Group B). Within Group A outcomes were further analyzed using paired t-tests and 95% mean confidence intervals under the following parameters: IPSS baseline ≥13, age, prostate size, site of service, prostate cancer treatment, and diabetic status. Adverse events, surgical interventions, and catheterization rates were summarized in detail. Results: Compared with the randomized controlled prosatic urethral lift (L.I.F.T.) study, subjects in this retrospective study were older and less symptomatic. After PUL, mean IPSS for Group A improved significantly from baseline by at least 8.1 points throughout follow-up. No significant differences were observed between Group A and B follow-up symptom scores. Within Group A, subjects with an IPSS baseline ≥13 behaved similarly to L.I.F.T. subjects. Age, prostate volume, site of service, prior cancer treatment, and diabetic status did not significantly affect PUL outcomes. When completed in a clinic office, PUL resulted in less side effects and catheter placement compared to other sites of service. Previous prostate cancer treatment did not elevate adverse events of high concern such as incontinence and infection. Conclusion: PUL performs well in a real-world setting in terms of symptom relief, morbidity, and patient experience for all studied patient cohorts.