Purpose: Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP; however, there are limited cost comparisons reported. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital direct costs of elective PAE and TURP in a hospital setting.
Materials and methods: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing PAE and TURP from January to December 2014. Inclusion criteria included male patients greater than 40 years of age who presented for ambulatory TURP or PAE with no history of prior surgical intervention for BPH. Direct costs were categorized into the following categories: nursing and operating room or interventional room staffing, operating room or interventional supply costs, anesthesia supplies, anesthesia staffing, hospital room cost, radiology, and laboratory costs. Additionally, length of stay was evaluated for both groups.
Results: The mean patient age for the TURP (n = 86) and PAE (n = 70) cohorts was 71.3 and 64.4 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). Intra-procedural supplies for PAE were significantly more costly than TURP ($1472.77 vs $1080.84, p < 0.0001). When including anesthesia supplies and nursing/staffing, costs were significantly more expensive for TURP than PAE ($2153.64 vs $1667.10 p < 0.0001). The average length of stay for the TURP group was longer at 1.38 versus 0.125 days for the PAE group. Total in-hospital costs for the TURP group ($5338.31, SD $3521.17) were significantly higher than for PAE ($1678.14, SD $442.0, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: When compared to TURP, PAE was associated with significantly lower direct in-hospital costs and shorter hospital stay.
Keywords: BPH; Cost; Prostate artery embolization (PAE); TURP.