Comparative efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift vs prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract

To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science from inception to March 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PUL or PAE with either transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham procedures as control interventions. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to pool the data on direct and indirect comparisons between interventions using STATA 14. Eight RCTs with 675 participants were included in our network meta-analysis. Quantitative synthesis revealed that TURP was the most efficacious intervention for clinical (International Prostate Symptoms Score and quality of life) and functional outcomes (maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume), and was associated with a lower reintervention rate compared with PAE (risk ratio [RR] 2.08 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 4.51) and PUL (RR 2.33 with 95% CI 0.50 to 10.86), although the difference were not statistically significant. Indirect comparison indicated that PUL and PAE resulted in similar outcomes. PAE was associated with fewer minor adverse events (AEs; RR 0.75 with 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18) and PUL with fewer major AEs (RR 0.72 with 95% CI 0.17 to 3.13) when compared with TURP. Whilst PAE had a better ranking with regard to improvement of most clinical and functional outcomes, PUL was the best ranked procedure regarding erectile function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function 5, but no significant difference was observed. Current evidence suggests that PUL and PAE have similar clinical efficacy and safety profiles in the management of LUTS associated with BPH. However, the quality of evidence is relatively low because of the paucity of RCTs available, and results should be interpreted with caution.