Objective: To reevaluate the patients receiving an alpha-blocker for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and scrutinize their indications for treatment requirement.
Materials and Methods: Alpha-blocker receiving patients, applying for represcription, were reevaluated for indications and effects of the drug on symptoms. Patients receiving treatment of more than three months were reevaluated by pre- and posttreatment IPSS, QoL score, prostate volume, uroflowmetry, prostate specific antigen (PSA), postvoid residual volume and urinalysis. Patients, who had a positive history for lower urinary tract surgery and who failed to cooperate, were excluded from study.
Results: Mean age of 118 included patients was 64,3±12,5 years. Before starting treatment, 45, 50, 45 and 32 patients have not been evaluated by ultrasound scan, uroflowmetry, urinalysis and PSA, respectively. Diabetic neurogenic bladder and chronic prostatitis accompanying BPH determined in 8 and 12 patients, respectively. Lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH were demonstrated in 72 patients. Twenty-six of these patients had a low IPSS (≤6 points), a good QoL score and uroflowmetry and PVR within normal limits. These patients accepted to have no indication for drug use. Prostate biopsy, performed in 2 patients due to high PSA level, revealed prostate cancer in one patient.
Conclusions: Our results showed that bladder outlet obstruction(BOO) due to BPH was not sufficiently demonstrated in a significant number of the patients and the indication for treatment was controversial. Inessential drug use, also, was shown for some other patients. So, the patients should be sufficiently evaluated for BOO and the outcome should be reevaluated by IPSS and QoL score regularly.
Key Words: Prostatic hyperplasia, alpha-blocker, indication
Abstract
Objective: To reevaluate the patients receiving an alpha-blocker for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and scrutinize their indications for treatment requirement.
Materials and Methods: Alpha-blocker receiving patients, applying for represcription, were reevaluated for indications and effects of the drug on symptoms. Patients receiving treatment of more than three months were reevaluated by pre- and posttreatment IPSS, QoL score, prostate volume, uroflowmetry, prostate specific antigen (PSA), postvoid residual volume and urinalysis. Patients, who had a positive history for lower urinary tract surgery and who failed to cooperate, were excluded from study.
Results: Mean age of 118 included patients was 64,3±12,5 years. Before starting treatment, 45, 50, 45 and 32 patients have not been evaluated by ultrasound scan, uroflowmetry, urinalysis and PSA, respectively. Diabetic neurogenic bladder and chronic prostatitis accompanying BPH determined in 8 and 12 patients, respectively. Lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH were demonstrated in 72 patients. Twenty-six of these patients had a low IPSS (≤6 points), a good QoL score and uroflowmetry and PVR within normal limits. These patients accepted to have no indication for drug use. Prostate biopsy, performed in 2 patients due to high PSA level, revealed prostate cancer in one patient.
Conclusions: Our results showed that bladder outlet obstruction(BOO) due to BPH was not sufficiently demonstrated in a significant number of the patients and the indication for treatment was controversial. Inessential drug use, also, was shown for some other patients. So, the patients should be sufficiently evaluated for BOO and the outcome should be reevaluated by IPSS and QoL score regularly.
Key Words: Prostatic hyperplasia, alpha-blocker, indication