Prostate artery embolization (PAE) often requires continuous fluoroscopy in order to visualize the arteries supplying the prostate and successfully embolize the vessels. Continuous fluoroscopy can expose the patient to high levels of radiation; therefore, usage of pulsed flow may provide for less radiation exposure. This study will aim to determine if pulsed flow results in higher failure rates compared to continuous flow at an outpatient-based laboratory. A total of 111 patients who underwent PAE for BPH treatment were reviewed. Information on radiation dose, success of the intervention and whether the patient received pulsed, continuous or a combination of both were collected. All procedures were conducted by an interventional radiologist on a GE OEC 9800 mobile fluoroscopy machine. Of the 111 patients who underwent PAE for BPH, a total of 66 patients received only continuous flow fluoroscopy while 45 patients received a combination of continuous and pulse flow. Of the two groups, there was no significant difference in failure rates. Pulse flow and continuous flow fluoroscopy did not show any significant difference. This indicates that patients who undergo prostate artery embolization can receive pulsatile flow without leading to increased procedural failure rates. This is especially relevant for outpatient facilities that often do not typically have fixed fluoroscopy units for performing PAE.