Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Active, Not Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT04726748

Economic Evaluation of Prostatic Urethral Lift

Prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) has been developed as a minimally invasive alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate with no need of general anaesthesia, less need of urinary catheter and less exposure to post-operative complication. Its efficacy and safety have been assessed by 2 clinical randomized trials with evidence of urinary symptom improvement remaining inferior to TURP but durable for 5 years. Urolift preserved overall quality of life better than TURP. Urolift has been recommended by the European Association of Urology guidelines and recognized by French authorities but cannot be financed by the hospital itself. Reimbursement of the implants by healthcare system is therefore needed for the distribution of Urolift in France.

The additional cost of the implants could be compensated by a reduced length of hospital stay and a lower rate of post-operative complications inducing healthcare expenditures. This study aims to assess if Urolift could be a cost-effective therapeutic strategy compared to transurethral surgery with 2 phases design: a field study comparing patients treated with Urolift to those treated with TURP/laser during 1 year follow-up, and an additional study comparing healthcare consumptions during 3 years follow-up between each group using data of the French National Claims Database (SNDS database).

Active, Not Recruiting

This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.

Key information

Age range

50 year and older

Sex eligibility

Male

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Transurethral surgery such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), laser enucleation or laser vaporisation, is the first line surgical treatment for bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Even if bipolar and laser surgery have improved surgical outcomes in terms of length of hospital stay and post-operative complications, these procedures remain associated with a significant amount of infectious and bleeding complications, as well as with some persistent side effects such as sexual dysfunction and urinary incontinence.

Prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) has been developed as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP with no need of general anaesthesia, less need of urinary catheter and less exposure to post-operative complication. Its efficacy and safety have been assessed by 2 clinical randomized trials with evidence of urinary symptom improvement remaining inferior to TURP but durable for 5 years. Urolift preserved overall quality of life better than TURP. Urolift has been recommended by the European Association of Urology guidelines and recognized by French authorities but cannot be financed by the hospital itself. Reimbursement of the implants by healthcare system is therefore needed for the distribution of Urolift in France.

The additional cost of the implants could be compensated by a reduced length of hospital stay and a lower rate of post-operative complications inducing healthcare expenditures. This study aims to assess if Urolift could be a cost-effective therapeutic strategy compared to transurethral surgery with 2 phases design: a field study comparing patients treated with Urolift to those treated with TURP/laser during 1 year follow-up, and an additional study comparing healthcare consumptions during 3 years follow-up between each group using data of the French National Claims Database (SNDS database).

Who can participate

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

● The PUL and TURP/LASER cohorts:

Inclusion criteria

  • male patient aged over 50 years
  • patient who experienced a PUL or TURP/Laser surgery in first line of treatment for a symptomatic BPH, with an International Prostatic Symptom Score > 13, a Peak urine flow rate < 12ml/sec on a voided volume >150ml a Prostate volume >30cc to <80 cc per ultrasound.
  • patient affiliated to a French health insurance system

Exclusion criteria

  • Patient with current urinary retention, post void residual urine > 250ml,
  • Patient with active urinary tract infection at time of treatment,
  • Patient with previous Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia procedure,
  • Patient with urethral conditions that may prevent insertion and delivery of device system into bladder,
  • Patient with previous pelvic surgery or irradiation,
  • Patient with history of neurogenic or atonic bladder,
  • Patient with biopsy of the prostate within the past 6 weeks,
  • Patient with life expectancy estimated to be less than 1 year,
  • Patient with history of prostate or bladder cancer,
  • Patient with PSA>10ng/ml unless prostate biopsy is negative,
  • Patient under guardianship or curatorship,
  • Patient intending to move abroad within 1 year after inclusion will not be included either,
  • Patient participating to another interventional study on benign prostatic hyperplasia during the study.
  • The SNDS cohort:

Inclusion criteria

  • male patient affiliated to a French health insurance system
  • patient aged over 50 years
  • patient who experienced a TURP/Laser surgery in first line of treatment for a symptomatic BPH in the same period as patients of the PUL and TURP/LASER cohorts.

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients hospitalized in one of the 6 investigational centers and patients with a previous BPH procedure,
  • patient with a previous pelvic surgery or irradiation,
  • patient with history of prostate or bladder cancer within the 2 previous years,
  • patient with a biopsy of the prostate within the past 6 weeks,
  • patient with a short life expectancy will not be included in the cohort.

Treatment and study plan

Comparisons between the Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and the TURP/Laser cohorts

Procedure

Comparison between the PUL and the TURP/Laser cohorts will be performed after 1 year and 3 years of follow-up in a intention-to-treat analysis using:

  • a linear regression model when it involves quantitative variables,
  • a logistic regression model adjusted on potential confounding when it involves qualitative variables.

Comparison between the Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and the SNDS cohorts

Procedure

Comparison between the PUL and the SNDS cohorts will be performed after 1 year and 3 years of follow-up in a intention-to-treat analysis using:

  • a linear regression model when it involves quantitative variables,
  • a logistic regression model adjusted on potential confounding when it involves qualitative variables.

Primary outcomes

  1. Incremental cost per avoided complication

    Time frame: 4 months after the date of surgical procedure

    Incremental cost per avoided complication (based on Clavien Dindo classification) of Prostatic Urethral Lift compared with classic transurethral surgery (TURP/laser) 4 months after the surgical procedure.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incremental cost per Quality adjusted life year

    Time frame: 12 months after the date of surgical procedure

    The incremental cost per Quality adjusted life year of Prostatic Urethral Lift compared with classic transurethral surgery at 12 months.

  2. Overall and specific urogenital healthcare consumptions

    Time frame: during 3 years after surgical procedure date

    Description of the overall and specific urogenital healthcare consumptions during the 3 years of follow-up.

    Means will be compared between two independent groups using Student's t-test when normal distribution is followed (or Mann-Whitney's test when normal distribution is not followed)

  3. Benign prostatic hyperplasia retreatment

    Time frame: 12 months after surgical procedure date ; 36 months after surgical porcedure date

    Any dispensing of the following medications at 1 and 3 years after surgical procedure: alpha-blockers or 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors.

  4. Urinary incontinence evolution

    Time frame: Inclusion date (date of the surgical procedure completion) ; 4 months after surgical procedure

    Urinary incontinence evolution between inclusion and 4 months after surgical procedure (Incontinence Severity Index (ISI)).

  5. Sexual quality of life evolution

    Time frame: Inclusion date (date of the surgical procedure completion) ; 4 months, 12 months after surgical procedure

    Sexual quality of life evolution between inclusion, 4 months and 12 months after surgical procedure (IIEF5, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD).

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Bordeaux

Other

Collaborators

  • Bordeaux PharmacoEpi

Registry information

Official study title

Economic Evaluation of Prostatic Urethral Lift (Urolift)

Acronym: ECOLIFT

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2025
First posted
Jan 27, 2021
Registry last updated
Jun 22, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.