PD18-02 LONG-TERM RATES OF TREATMENT FAILURE FOR AMBULATORY TURP AND PVP: AN ASSESSMENT USING STATE-LEVEL CLAIMS DATA

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III (PD18)1 Sep 2021PD18-02 LONG-TERM RATES OF TREATMENT FAILURE FOR AMBULATORY TURP AND PVP: AN ASSESSMENT USING STATE-LEVEL CLAIMS DATA Wesley Chou, Daniel Frendl, Ya-Wen Chen, David Chang, and Michelle Kim Wesley ChouWesley Chou More articles by this author , Daniel FrendlDaniel Frendl More articles by this author , Ya-Wen ChenYa-Wen Chen More articles by this author , David ChangDavid Chang More articles by this author , and Michelle KimMichelle Kim More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002007.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: While photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) has become one of the most common ambulatory procedures for BPH, its long-term durability compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is not well established. Existing studies often group together heterogenous procedural codes in inpatient and outpatient settings or occur in regions with low PVP uptake. We evaluate state-level outcomes up to 10 years after PVP or TURP, specifically in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database, we identified men ≥40 years old who underwent index ambulatory BPH procedure, specifically PVP (Common Procedural Terminology [CPT] 52648) or single-stage TURP (CPT 52601) from 2002-2016. The primary endpoint of interest was a composite outcome defined as reoperation or postoperative catheterization for urinary retention ≥60 days from index operation. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Fine-Gray competing risk models were performed to 10 years, with death as the competing risk. RESULTS: We identified 19,624 men in our cohort with a median age of 69 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 62-76) and a median follow-up of 3.9 years (IQR: 1.9-6.7). PVP was more common than TURP (69% vs. 31%, respectively). At 10 years, unadjusted cumulative rates of composite failure were respectively 21% and 20% for PVP and TURP (p=0.86). Kaplan-Meier estimates found no differences in composite failure (log-rank: p=0.62, Fig. 1). Competing risk models did not show increased hazards of treatment failure for PVP vs. TURP after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: In a state-wide study, we found no difference in 10-year rates of composite failure after ambulatory PVP or TURP. These results support equivalence of long-term durability in a population where both techniques are commonly performed in the outpatient setting. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e355-e355 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Wesley Chou More articles by this author Daniel Frendl More articles by this author Ya-Wen Chen More articles by this author David Chang More articles by this author Michelle Kim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...