|
Study: sapoval, m., thiounn, n., descazeaud, a., déan, c., ruffion, a., pagnoux, g., duarte, r.C., robert, g., petitpierre, f., karsenty, g., vidal, v., murez, t., vernhet-kovacsik, h., de la taille, a., kobeiter, h., mathieu, r., heautot, j.-f., droupy, s., frandon, j., vappereau, a.(2023).Prostatic artery embolisation versus medical treatment in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (partem): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, superiority trial.The lancet regional health - europe, 31, 100672.Https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.Lanepe.2023.100672 was reviewed during internal quality system activities.The publication describes that at the 9 months follow-up, there were a total of 31 patients in the pae group and 21 patients in the ct group presented at least one serious injury (table 3).No hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization induced by a serious injury related to the treatment was observed.See table 3 on page 9 of the attached article for all side effects of the procedure.The publication describes multiple serious injury events summarized in aggregate form without complete patient-level detail.Therefore, the manufacturer is submitting a consolidated literature-based mdr representing the serious injury event type described in the article.The serious injuries are as follows: two abdominopelvic pain, one arrythmia, three arterial dissection/perforation, three balanitis, one bph increase, three dysuria, one excessive radiation dose, one foot pain, two hematoma at femoral access, one hydrocele, one myalgia, one obstructive renal insufficiency, one pain following urinary catheterization, one pain/burning during miction, four polyuria/nocturia, seventeen post-embolization syndrome, one prostatitis, one renal tumor ablation, one rhinitis, one skin melanoma, one thoracic pain, one total hip replacement, one transient ischemic attack, and one urinary tract infection.No further information is available, and it is unknown if any patients had more than one issue arise after the pae.
|