Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2025
Transradial Access Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Published on: September 20, 2020
Prostatic Artery Embolization Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Post Hoc Cost Analysis of a
Ferran Capdevila1,2,3, Iñigo Insausti4,5, Arkaitz Galbete4,6,7,8,9
1Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Calle Irunlarrea 3, 31008, Pamplona, Spain. fcapdevilabastons@gmail.com.
Purpose:
To perform a post hoc analysis of patient-incurred costs in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
Materials And Methods:
Patients older than 60 years with indication of TURP were randomized to PAE or TURP procedure. After intervention and hospital discharge, patients were follow-up during 12 months The associated patient costs were categorized according to the study period: pre-intervention, intervention, hospitalization, and follow-up. Several items for both groups were analyzed within each study period.
Results:
The mean total costs per patient were lower for PAE (€ 3,192.87) than for TURP (€ 3,974.57), with this difference of € 781.70 being significant (p = 0.026). For most evaluated items, the mean costs were significantly higher for TURP. No significant differences were observed in the mean costs of PAE (€ 1,468.00) and TURP (€ 1,684.25) procedures (p = 0.061). However, the histopathology analysis, recovery room stay, and intraoperative laboratory analysis increased the interventional costs for TURP (€ 1,999.70) compared with PAE (€ 1,468.00) (p < 0.001). No cost differences were observed between PAE (€ 725.26) and TURP (€ 556.22) during the 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.605). None of patients required a repeat intervention during the study period.
Conclusions:
Considering the short-term follow-up, PAE was associated with significantly lower costs compared with TURP. Future investigations in the context of routine clinical practice should be aimed at comparing the long-term effectiveness of both procedures and determining their cost-effectiveness.
Level Of Evidence:
Level 1 (a-c).
