Skip to main content

Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE)

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive interventional-radiology procedure that selectively occludes the prostatic arterial supply to induce ischemic necrosis and infarction of the prostatic adenoma, producing progressive volume reduction (typically 25–40% at 3–12 months) and relief of bladder outlet obstruction. Unlike resective procedures, PAE does not remove tissue — the adenoma shrinks through devascularization.[1][2][3]

For positioning vs other BPH MISTs and surgical alternatives, see BPH & Male LUTS — chooser.

The AUA 2023 Guideline Amendment offers PAE as a Conditional Recommendation, Evidence Level Grade C for LUTS/BPH, performed by clinicians specifically trained in this interventional radiology procedure. The Panel was unable to find substantial evidence to recommend PAE over more widely available MISTs for routine treatment, and acknowledges short-term benefit vs observation in select patients.[4]

Mechanism of action​

Selective occlusion of the prostatic arterial supply → ischemic necrosis + infarction of the adenoma → progressive volume reduction (25–40%), decreased intraurethral pressure, BOO relief.[1][2][3]

Preprocedural evaluation​

ComponentDetail
ClinicalIPSS, QoL, IIEF, uroflowmetry (Qmax), PVR, DRE
LaboratoryPSA, urinalysis, BMP, coagulation studies
ImagingCT angiography (CTA) of the pelvis — standard preprocedural modality to map prostatic arterial anatomy, identify variants, assess atherosclerotic disease, and determine catheterizability. MR angiography is an alternative. Prostate volume by TRUS or MRI.[5][6][7]
Exclusion criteriaCTA-demonstrated prostatic arteries not amenable to PAE; active UTI; prostate cancer; neurogenic bladder; severe atherosclerotic disease or iliac tortuosity precluding access[4][7]

A 2025 Delphi consensus of 14 international experts (Rostambeigi 2025 JVIR) standardized recommendations across six procedural domains — preprocedural imaging, antibiotic prophylaxis, arterial access, prostatic artery identification and cannulation, embolization technique, and non-target embolization prevention.[5]

Procedural technique​

Access and angiography​

  • Local anesthesia + conscious sedation (no general anesthesia).
  • Arterial access via femoral (most common) or radial puncture.
  • DSA of bilateral internal iliac arteries to map prostatic supply.
  • Cone-beam CT (CBCT) intraprocedurally to identify all prostatic arteries and confirm absence of non-target vessels.[2][8][9]

Prostatic artery anatomy​

The prostatic artery most commonly arises from the internal pudendal artery or the inferior vesical artery, with numerous variants. Bilateral catheterization is the goal — unilateral PAE is associated with significantly higher recurrence (42% vs 21%).[3][6] Key anatomic considerations:

  • Shared origins with superior vesical, obturator, or internal pudendal arteries
  • Anastomoses with rectal, penile, and bladder arteries (risk of non-target embolization)
  • Accessory prostatic arteries in 20–30% of patients[6][10]

Embolization​

Super-selective microcatheterization positions the catheter tip within or at the ostium of the prostatic artery; embolization carried to complete stasis with particle embolics.[2][9][11]

Embolic agents​

AgentSizeNotes
Tris-acryl gelatin microspheres (Embosphere)300–500 µmMost widely used in RCTs[2][4]
PVA microspheres (Bead Block)300–500 µmCalibrated spherical particles[3]
Non-spherical PVA particles45–150 or 150–250 µmUsed in some European centers (PROEMBO trial)[7]
Smaller microspheres100–300 µmMore distal penetration; used in 80% of cases in one large series[12]
NBCA glue (cyanoacrylate)LiquidMixed with ethiodized oil; 100% technical success in 186 patients (Loffroy 2026)[13]
EVOH (Onyx-type)Liquid88% clinical success at 3 mo; Prostatic EVOH Penetration Score (PEPS) predicts outcome (100% if high, 0% if low)[14]

The PErFecTED technique​

PErFecTED (Proximal Embolization First, Then Embolize Distal) — Carnevale 2014 two-step approach designed to maximize prostatic ischemia:[11]

  1. Step 1 (Proximal): microcatheter advanced past collateral branches and positioned within the prostatic artery before its branching. The urethral group of arteries (supplying the periurethral adenoma where BPH primarily develops) is embolized first.
  2. Step 2 (Distal): microcatheter pulled back; further investigation and embolization of remaining prostatic parenchymal branches to achieve complete stasis.

Since adopting PErFecTED, the authors reported infarcts in all patients and lower recurrence rates vs single-step embolization.[11]

Emerging adjuncts​

  • NBCA glue — Loffroy 2026 (n = 186): IPSS 20.1 → 10 at 12 mo; volume 118 → 81 mL; no major complications; preserved IIEF-5.[13]
  • EVOH (Onyx-type) — Guerra 2026 (n = 73): 88% clinical success at 3 mo; novel PEPS score predicts outcome (100% high vs 0% low).[14]
  • "Coil-out" — adjunctive coil occlusion of the prostatic artery after particle embolization to prevent recanalization.[5]

Procedural parameters​

MetricTypical range
Procedure time71–120 min (26% reduction with experience)
Fluoroscopy time19–50 min (25% reduction with experience)
Radiation dose~ 248 Gy·cm²
Bilateral embolization achieved81–96%
Technical success86–100%
SettingOutpatient in most cases; no catheter unless retention present

Clinical efficacy​

OutcomeResultFollow-up
IPSS improvement−9 to −16 points3–96 mo
QoL improvement−2 to −4 points3–96 mo
Qmax improvement+4 to +6.8 mL/s6–12 mo
Prostate volume reduction25–39%3–12 mo
PSA reduction30–50%3–12 mo
Clinical success (≥ 50% IPSS reduction)88–90%3–12 mo
Catheter-free rate (retention patients)84–94%3 mo
BPO medication-free rate65.5%1 yr

References for table: AUA 2023 sham-controlled RCT data[4]; Cochrane 2022[2]; Carnevale 10-yr[3]; Picel 2019 review[6]; Bhatia 1,075-pt series[15]; Guerra 2026 EVOH[14].

The Bhatia 2025 single-center series (n = 1,075, mean FU 458 d) showed sustained IPSS improvement through 48–60 mo (median IPSS 9 at 4–5 yr vs 23 at baseline).[15]

The Carnevale 2020 10-yr experience (n = 317): mean maximum IPSS improvement 16 points, prostate volume reduction 39%, Qmax improvement 6 mL/s. Early clinical failure 1.9%; symptom recurrence 23% at median 72 mo.[3]

Voiding vs storage symptoms: PAE improves voiding more than storage. At 1 month, voiding-domain improvement 69% vs storage 46% (p < 0.05).[16]

Durability and retreatment — the central limitation​

This is the most significant limitation vs surgical alternatives:

  • Cochrane 2022 — PAE likely increases retreatment vs TURP (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.32–10.93; moderate certainty).[2]
  • Abt 2-yr RCT — 21% of PAE patients required TURP within 2 yr vs 0% TURP-arm crossover.[17]
  • Carnevale 10-yr series — recurrence 23% at median 72 mo. Unilateral PAE associated with 42% vs 21% recurrence (p = 0.04). Higher baseline PSA inversely related to recurrence (HR 0.9 per ng/mL).[3]
  • Bhatia 1,075-pt series — 16% required a second prostatic intervention up to 60 mo.[15]
  • 2025 narrative review estimated retreatment ~ 1 in 5 at 2 yr and nearly half at 5 yr in long-term randomized follow-up.[18]

Comparison with TURP​

ParameterPAETURP
IPSS improvement (12 mo)−9 to −13−12 to −15
Qmax improvement (2 yr)+3.9 mL/s+10.2 mL/s
PVR reduction (2 yr)−62 mL−204 mL
Prostate volume reduction (2 yr)−10.7 mL−30.2 mL
Retreatment at 2 yr21%0%
Total adverse eventsFewer (43 vs 78, p = 0.005)More
Ejaculatory preservationBetterWorse
Erectile functionSimilarSimilar
HospitalizationOutpatientInpatient
AnesthesiaConscious sedationSpinal / general

References: AUA 2023 sham + TURP RCT data[4]; Cochrane 2022[2]; Abt 2-yr RCT[17].

The Abt 2021 RCT (n = 103, 2-yr FU) is the most rigorous comparison: TURP superior for IPSS (MD 2.88, p = 0.047) and Qmax (MD −6.33 mL/s); fewer adverse events with PAE.[17]

PAE vs medical therapy — the PARTEM trial​

PARTEM (Sapoval 2023, multicenter RCT, n = 90) compared PAE to dutasteride + tamsulosin combination therapy in BPH ≥ 50 mL resistant to alpha-blocker monotherapy:[19]

  • IPSS improvement at 9 mo: −10.0 (PAE) vs −5.7 (CT) — difference −4.4, p = 0.0008.
  • IIEF-15: +8.2 (PAE) vs −2.8 (CT) — PAE significantly improved sexual function while combination therapy worsened it.
  • No PAE-related serious adverse events or hospitalizations.
  • 5 PAE vs 18 CT patients required invasive re-treatment at 9 mo.

Safety and complications​

Major complications are rare (< 1% in > 2,000 patients across the SIR review):[20][15]

  • TIA 0.3%
  • Urosepsis 0.2% (treated with IV antibiotics)
  • Prostate sloughing requiring TURP 0.2%
  • All resolved without permanent sequelae.[15]

Minor complications (16–19%):[2][12][13]

  • Postembolization syndrome (pain, dysuria, frequency, low-grade fever) — most common; resolves within 1 wk with symptomatic management.[20]
  • Perineal pain 9.4%
  • Hematuria 9%
  • Acute urinary retention 7% (up to 28% in some series)
  • Hematospermia, rectal bleeding, UTI, inguinal hematoma, transient frequency

Non-target embolization is the most feared complication — bladder, rectum, corpus cavernosum, or penile arteries. CBCT helps identify and avoid non-target vessels. In the EVOH series, 8 non-target embolizations were identified in 10% of patients; all asymptomatic.[14]

Sexual function — PAE consistently preserves erectile and ejaculatory function. No significant change in IIEF-5 across multiple series.[3][12][13] PARTEM showed PAE actually improved IIEF-15 by 8.2 points.[19]

SIR multisociety consensus recommendations​

McWilliams 2019 SIR multisociety consensus (endorsed by CIRSE, SFR, BSIR, APSCVIR, CAIR, CCI, IRSA, JSIR, KSIR):[20]

  • PAE is an acceptable minimally invasive treatment for appropriately selected men with moderate-to-severe LUTS (Level B, strong).
  • PAE may be considered for very large prostates > 80 cm³ without an upper size limit (Level C, moderate).
  • PAE may be considered for acute or chronic urinary retention with preserved bladder function (Level C, moderate).
  • PAE may be considered for patients wishing to preserve erectile and/or ejaculatory function (Level C, weak).
  • PAE may be considered for hematuria of prostatic origin (Level D, strong).
  • PAE may be considered for patients not surgical candidates due to age, comorbidity, coagulopathy, or inability to stop anticoagulation (Level E, moderate).

The EAU also recommends PAE for moderate-to-severe LUTS in men who wish to consider minimally invasive options and accept less-optimal objective outcomes vs TURP.[2]

Predictors of success​

  • Larger prostate volume is the strongest predictor — patients with prostates > 80 cm³ show significantly more IPSS improvement (14 vs 10.5 points), Qmax improvement, and PVR reduction. Optimal thresholds: total prostate volume ≥ 39 mL, central gland volume ≥ 38 mL.[20][21]
  • Higher central-gland index (central gland / total prostate volume) correlates with greater Qmax improvement (rs = 0.46, p = 0.003).[21]
  • Bilateral embolization > unilateral (recurrence 21% vs 42%).[3]
  • Higher baseline PSA inversely related to recurrence (HR 0.9 per ng/mL — likely reflects larger adenoma burden).[3]
  • Postprocedural pain + PSA / CRP elevation may serve as early outcome predictors (reflects adequate ischemia).[21]
  • Atherosclerotic plaque burden + iliac tortuosity predict technical failure but not clinical outcome.[7]
  • Embolic penetration depth (PEPS score with EVOH) strongly predicts clinical success.[14]

Ideal patient profile​

  • Moderate-to-severe LUTS (IPSS ≥ 18) refractory to medical therapy
  • Larger prostates (≥ 50 mL, ideally > 80 mL)
  • Patients prioritizing sexual function preservation
  • High surgical risk (advanced age, comorbidity, anticoagulation)
  • Patients with urinary retention seeking catheter independence
  • Patients with prostatic hematuria
  • Favorable vascular anatomy on CTA (accessible prostatic arteries; minimal atherosclerosis / tortuosity)

Advantages and limitations​

Advantages

  • Outpatient; conscious sedation only
  • No general anesthesia, no urethral instrumentation
  • Excellent sexual function preservation
  • No upper limit on prostate size
  • Fewer perioperative complications than TURP
  • Performable on anticoagulated patients
  • Superior to combination medical therapy (PARTEM)

Limitations

  • Higher retreatment (~ 16–23% at 2–5 yr vs ~ 0–7% TURP)
  • Less objective improvement in Qmax / PVR vs TURP
  • Technically demanding; steep learning curve
  • Radiation exposure (fluoroscopy)
  • Not all patients have favorable vascular anatomy (4–19% technical failure)
  • Limited long-term data (most RCTs ≤ 2 yr)
  • Overall evidence certainty remains low to moderate

See Also​

References​

1. Picel AC, Hsieh TC, Shapiro RM, Vezeridis AM, Isaacson AJ. Prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: patient evaluation, anatomy, and technique for successful treatment. Radiographics. 2019;39(5):1526–1548. doi:10.1148/rg.2019180195

2. Jung JH, McCutcheon KA, Borofsky M, et al. Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;3:CD012867. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012867.pub3

3. Carnevale FC, Moreira AM, de Assis AM, et al. Prostatic artery embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: 10 years' experience. Radiology. 2020;296(2):444–451. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191249

4. Sandhu JS, Bixler BR, Dahm P, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): AUA guideline amendment 2023. J Urol. 2024;211(1):11–19. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003698

5. Rostambeigi N, Sapoval M, Bilhim T, et al. Standardized technique for prostatic artery embolization: a Delphi consensus study on optimized methods and emerging concepts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2025;S1051-0443(25)00726-2. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2025.10.033

6. Dias US, de Moura MRL, Viana PCC, et al. Prostatic artery embolization: indications, preparation, techniques, imaging evaluation, reporting, and complications. Radiographics. 2021;41(5):1509–1530. doi:10.1148/rg.2021200144

7. Schmidt VF, Grethen J, Pryadko M, et al. Pre- and periprocedural imaging predicts technical but not clinical success of prostatic artery embolization using non-spherical PVA particles — insights from the prospective PROEMBO trial. Acad Radiol. 2025;S1076-6332(25)00922-5. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.09.043

8. Franco JV, Jung JH, Imamura M, et al. Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;7:CD013656. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013656.pub2

9. Uflacker AB, Haskal ZJ, Baerlocher MO, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology research reporting standards for prostatic artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(6):891–898.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2020.03.003

10. Iossa V, Punzi E, Pandolfo SD, et al. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a case series and narrative review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(11):3775. doi:10.3390/jcm14113775

11. Carnevale FC, Moreira AM, Antunes AA. The "PErFecTED technique": proximal embolization first, then embolize distal for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(6):1602–1605. doi:10.1007/s00270-014-0908-z

12. Alizadeh LS, Radek D, Booz C, et al. Prostatic artery embolization: lessons from 551 procedures at a single-center. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(11):4519–4527. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2024.05.039

13. Loffroy R, Quirantes A, Tomassoni MT, et al. One-year outcomes of glue prostate-artery-embolization for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Eur Radiol. 2026;36(3):2317–2328. doi:10.1007/s00330-025-11983-6

14. Guerra X, Denis le Sève L, Pellerin O, et al. Prostatic artery embolization using ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH): efficacy, safety and clinical impact of liquid embolic penetration. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2026. doi:10.1007/s00270-026-04353-2

15. Bhatia S, Bhatia A, Richardson AJ, et al. Prostatic artery embolization: mid- to long-term outcomes in 1,075 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2025;36(3):456–466. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2024.11.002

16. Powell T, Staib L, Liu B, et al. Voiding and storage domain-specific symptom score outcomes after prostate artery embolization for lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention. Urology. 2021;156:216–224. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.046

17. Abt D, Müllhaupt G, Hechelhammer L, et al. Prostatic artery embolisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: 2-yr outcomes of a randomised, open-label, single-centre trial. Eur Urol. 2021;80(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.008

18. Dinc R. Promising minimally invasive option emerging in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: prostatic artery embolization. J Clin Med. 2025;14(24):8631. doi:10.3390/jcm14248631

19. Sapoval M, Thiounn N, Descazeaud A, et al. Prostatic artery embolisation versus medical treatment in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (PARTEM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, superiority trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2023;31:100672. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100672

20. McWilliams JP, Bilhim TA, Carnevale FC, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology multisociety consensus position statement on prostatic artery embolization for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(5):627–637.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.013

21. Abt D, Müllhaupt G, Mordasini L, et al. Outcome prediction of prostatic artery embolization: post hoc analysis of a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. BJU Int. 2019;124(1):134–144. doi:10.1111/bju.14632