Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 24;26:72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.02.001

Table 4.

Evidence overview of prostatic arterial embolization versus TURP

Outcome Number of trials (evaluated) Intervention Control Results Relative risk (95% CI) Quality of evidence
% (n/N) or mean change % (n/N) or mean change Absolute risk difference (95% CI)
Responders, based on IPSS reduction of ≥8 points 1 (30) 87 (13/15) 100 (15/15) Similar between groups 0.9 (0.7 to 1.1) Lowa, b
–13.3% (–33.1 to 6.4)
IPSS, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) 1 (107) –15.6 points –16.3 points Similar between groups Moderatea
MD –0.7 (–1.3 to 2.7)
IPSS-QoL, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) 1 (107) –3.2 points –3.2 points Similar between groups Moderatea
MD –0.0 (–0.0 to 0.0)
Need for reoperation 2 (144) 10 (7/72) 3 (2/72) 7% (–0.9% to 14.8) 2.9 (0.7–11.9) Very lowa, c
Transfusion 2 (144) 0 (0/72) 3 (2/72) –2.8% (–7.4 to 1.8) 0.2 (0.01–4.1) Very lowa, c
Urinary incontinence 2 (129) 0 (0/63) 11 (7/66) Greater with TURP 0.1 (0.02–0.99) Lowa, b
–10.6% (–18.5 to –2.8)

CI = confidence intervals; IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score; MD = mean difference; QoL = quality of life; TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate.

Downgraded based on the following:

a

Risk of bias (moderate).

b

Imprecision.

c

Very wide confidence interval and few events.