title: A controlled, randomized, head-to-head comparison of the Prolieve thermodilatation System versus the Targis System for benign prostatic hyperplasia: safety, procedural tolerability, and clinical results.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Compare safety and tolerability of the Prolieve(®) System with the Targis(®) System using objective and subjective measures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-four men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were randomized to a single treatment with either the Prolieve or Targis system; 30 were treated and then followed for 6 months. After post-treatment bladder fill with ≥200 mL saline, patients were catheterized if they could not void after 2 hours or had a postvoid residual >150 mL. Catheter use, visual analog scale (VAS) tolerability scores, American Urological Association scores, and safety were assessed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  After treatment, 15/16 (94%) Prolieve patients remained catheter-free compared with 3/14 (21%) Targis patients (P = 0.0001). Foley catheter indwelling time was 58.8 hours for the one Prolieve patient compared with 103.9 hrs (range 54-270 h) for the Targis patients (n = 9). Targis patients' catheterization requirements were: Seven Foley only, two intermittent self-catheters only, and two needing both. Intermittent self-catheterization continued for 1 month in two Targis patients. VAS tolerability scores were 24% to 50% lower during Prolieve treatment vs Targis (P < 0.05). Mean AUA scores for Prolieve improved from 21.2 at baseline to 12.3 and 7.9 at week 2 and month 6, respectively; for Targis, AUA scores improved from 22.9 at baseline to 17.9 and 10.9, respectively (P > 0.05). Overall, the incidence of device-related adverse events was 31% (Prolieve) compared with 64% (Targis) (P > 0.05)-most prevalently, urinary retention, dysuria, and hematuria. No device-related serious adverse events occurred.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Prolieve provided enhanced near-term therapeutic benefit over Targis as assessed by catheterization, tolerability, and symptom relief, which may assist physician and patient decision-making when selecting an office-based transurethral microwave therapy option for patients.
authors.affiliation: Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572, USA. nshore@grandstrandurology.com
authors.forename: Neal D
authors.initials: ND
authors.lastname: Shore
authors.forename: Parminder S
authors.initials: PS
authors.lastname: Sethi
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D002404:Catheterization; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D020728:Transurethral Resection of Prostate / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014554:Urination / Q000502:physiology