Literature DB >> 10992365

Sildenafil versus intracavernous injection therapy: efficacy and preference in patients on intracavernous injection for more than 1 year.

D G Hatzichristou1, A Apostolidis, V Tzortzis, E Ioannides, K Yannakoyorgos, A Kalinderis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To our knowledge comparative data on the effectiveness of and patient preference for intracavernous injection therapy and sildenafil are still not available. We evaluated the efficacy of sildenafil as well as patient preference in a group of impotent men on intracavernous injection for more than a year.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients on intracavernous injection therapy for more than a year without neurological disease and/or a contraindication to sildenafil treatment were recruited for study. In phase 1 we determined the efficacy of 50 and 100 mg. sildenafil citrate at home. In phase 2 responders to sildenafil were asked to use the preferred dose orally for a month and choose intracavernous injection or sildenafil. In phase 3 patients were asked to continue either treatment for 3 more months. Patient preferences were reported at the end of phases 2 and 3.
RESULTS: Of the 180 men recruited 155 with a mean age of 56.4 +/- 12.6 years on intracavernous injection for a mean of 26 +/- 9 months accepted and were included in our series. Overall 116 men (74.8%) responded to sildenafil during study phase 1. After 1 month of treatment 71 responders (61.2%) preferred to continue with the oral drug, 31 (26.7%) returned to intracavernous injection and 14 (12.1%) used each drug alternately. Three months later 74 of the 116 responders (63.8%) preferred oral treatment and 38 (32.8%) chose intracavernous injection, while 4 (3. 4%) continued to use each treatment alternately.
CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil is highly effective in intracavernous injection responders, although a certain group prefer to continue intracavernous injection. While sildenafil should be considered first line treatment, men with erectile dysfunction should be aware of all treatment options available because nonresponders to sildenafil may respond to intracavernous injection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10992365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  5 in total

1.  UK department of health guidance on prescribing for impotence following the introduction of sildenafil: potential to contain costs in the average health authority district.

Authors:  Martin Ashton-Key; Michael Sadler; Byron Walmsley; Simon Holmes; Sarah Randall; Michael H Cummings
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  The Efficacy of Acupuncture on Patients with Erectile Dysfunction: A Review.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Ming Zhao; Jiwei Zhang; Bin Yan; Shengjing Liu; Feng Zhao; Jun Guo; Fu Wang
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 3.  A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient?

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios G Hatzichristou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Penile prosthesis implantation in Chinese patients with severe erectile dysfunction: 10-year experience.

Authors:  Wei-Dong Song; Yi-Ming Yuan; Wan-Shou Cui; Alex K Wu; Yi-Chen Zhu; Jing Liu; Lin Wang; Guang-Yi Bai; Jing Peng; Zhi-Chao Zhang; Bing Gao; Ying-Lu Guo; Tom F Lue; Zhong-Cheng Xin
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 5.  Recruiting endogenous stem cells: a novel therapeutic approach for erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Zhong-Cheng Xin; Yong-De Xu; Guiting Lin; Tom F Lue; Ying-Lu Guo
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.