PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
To clarify whether vardenafil can be used as a substitute for intracavernosal injection as a method of induction of penile erection, we compared the outcome of penile duplex Doppler ultrasonography using both methods in the same patient with erectile dysfunction.
Materials and Methods
A total of 23 patients underwent penile duplex ultrasonography twice with a one week interval between procedures. Twelve were randomly selected for intracavernosal injection first with prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) 20μg and the remaining 11 were initially treated with oral vardenafil 20mg 1 hour before the Doppler study and in addition had visual sexual stimulation using a head-mounted display during the study. The peak systolic velocity (PSV), end diastolic velocity (EDV) and the degree of maximum erectile response were measured and compared between the two groups.
Results
Measurements from the PGE1 treatment were not significantly different from those with the vardenafil treatment. The percentage of compatibility between the two methods with regard to hemodynamic diagnosis and pharmaceutical erectile response was as high as 83% (19 of 23) and 91% (21 of 23), respectively. Both methods were tolerable and safe without severe complications. However, in 4 patients where the diagnosis was uncertain, the injection method provided a more accurate interpretation of the penile vascular status with duplex ultrasonography.
REFERENCES
1.Carrier S., Brock G., Kour NW., Lue TF. Pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1993. 42:468–81.
2.Quam JP., King BF., James EM., Lewis RW., Brakke DM., Ilstrup DM, et al. Duplex and color Doppler sonographic evaluation of vasculogenic impotence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989. 153:1141–7.
3.Sattar AA., Wery D., Golzarian J., Raviv G., Schulman CC., Wespes E. Correlation of nocturnal penile tumescence monitoring duplex ultrasonography and infusion cavernosometry for the diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 1996. 155:1274–6.
4.Melman A., Gingell JC. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 1999. 161:5–11.
5.Meuleman EJ., Bemelmans BL., van Asten WN., Doesburg WH., Skotnicki SH., Debruyne FM. Assessment of penile blood flow by duplex ultrasonography in 44 men with normal erectile potency in different phases of erection. J Urol. 1992. 147:51–6.
6.Junuzovic D. Mehmedbasic S, Smajlovic F. Color-Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnostic evaluation of erectile dysfunction. Med Arh. 2003. 57:279–83.
7.Melman A. An intermediate approach to impotence evaluation. Contemp Urol. 1995. 7:14–8.
8.Lee U., Lee MH., Kim SY., Ji YH., Hong JH., Ahn TY. Clinical efficacy and safety of sildenafil in the men with erectile dysfunction in Korea. Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:435–40.
9.Lue TF. Erectile dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000. 342:1802–13.
10.Rybalkin SD., Yan C., Bornfeldt KE., Beavo JA. Cyclic GMP phosphodiesterases and regulation of smooth muscle function. Circ Res. 2003. 93:280–91.
11.Saenz de Tejada I., Angulo J., Cuevas P., Fernández A., Mon-cada I., Allona A, et al. The phosphodiesterase inhibitory selectivity and the in vitro and in vivo potency of the new PDE5 inhibitor vardenafil. Int J Impot Res. 2001. 13:282–90.
12.Broderick GA., Arger P. Duplex Doppler ultrasonography: noninvasive assessment of penile anatomy and function. Semin Roentgenol. 1993. 28:43–56.
13.Oates CP., Pickard RS., Powell PH., Murthy LN., Whittingham TA. The use of duplex ultrasound in the assessment of arterial supply to the penis in vasculogenic impotence. J Urol. 1995. 153:354–7.
14.Mellinger BC., Fried JJ., Vaughan ED Jr. Papaverine-induced penile blood flow acceleration in impotent men measured by duplex scanning. J Urol. 1990. 144:897–9.
15.Meuleman EJ., Bemelmans BL., Doesburg WH., van Asten WN., Skotnicki SH., Debruyne FM. Penile pharmacological duplex ultrasonography: a dose-effect study comparing papaverine, papaverine/phentolamine and prostaglandin E1. J Urol. 1992. 148:63–6.
16.Junemann KP., Alken P. Pharmacotherapy of erectile dysfunction: a reveiw. Int J Impotence Res. 1989. 1:71–8.
17.Fallon B. Intracavernous injection therapy for male erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 1995. 22:833–45.
18.Gresser U., Gleiter CH. Erectile dysfunction: comparison of efficacy and side effects of the PDE-5 inhibitors sildenafil, vardenafil and tadalafil: review of the literature. Eur J Res. 2002. 7:435–46.
19.Erdoğru T., Usta MF., Ceken K., Köksal T., Ates M., Ka-baalioğlu A, et al. Is sildenafil citrate an alternative agent in the evaluation of penile vascular system with color Doppler ultrasound? Urol Int. 2002. 68:255–60.
20.Hwang IS., Park KS. Evaluation of erectile dysfunction by penile duplex Doppler ultrasonography: trimix intracavernosal injection versus vardenafil oral medication. Korean J Androl. 2005. 23:12–6.
21.Oh SY., Jun HJ., Kim SC. Changing trends in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the era of oral sildenafil. Korean J Androl. 2002. 20:69–74.
22.Vardi Y., Sprecher E., Greunwald I. Logistic regression and survival analysis of 450 impotent patients treated with injection therapy: long-term dropout parameters. J Urol. 2000. 163:467–70.
23.Chiou RK., Alberts GL., Pomeroy BD., Anderson JC., Carlson LK., Anderson JR, et al. Study of cavernosal arterial anatomy using color and power Doppler sonography: impact on hemodynamic parameter measurement. J Urol. 1999. 162:358–60.
24.Baek UG., Moon KH. Efficacy of a 3-dimension HMD (head mounted displayer) for audiovisual sexual stimulation after oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE 5) inhibitor medication for the diagnosis of vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1302–7.
25.Hellstrom WJ., Gittelman M., Karlin G., Segerson T., Thibonnier M., Taylor T, et al. Sustained efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil, a highly potent selective phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in men with erectile dysfunction: results of a randomized, double-blind, 26-week placebo-controlled pivotal trial. Urology. 2003. 61(4 Suppl 1):8–14.
Table 1.
Characteristics of patients (n=23)
Table 2.
Comparison of PSV, EDV, erection grade and diagnosis between the group with intracavernosal injection and oral vardenafil with sexual stimulation
| No. | 1st study | PSV* (cm/sec) | EDV* (cm/sec) | Erection grade | Diagnosis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICI | Vardenafil | ICI | Vardenafil | ICI | Vardenafil | ICI | Vardenafil | ||
| 1 | I | 42.5 | 38.6 | 9.0 | 6.7 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 2 | O | 33.6 | 15.3 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 3 | 2 | N | AI |
| 3 | I | 34.9 | 31.1 | 7.2 | 6.9 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 4 | O | 28.6 | 27.3 | 4.7 | 5.2 | 2 | 2 | AI | AI |
| 5 | I | 38.7 | 34.8 | 5.6 | 5.2 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 6 | O | 26.3 | 24.1 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2 | 1 | AI | AI |
| 7 | I | 24.6 | 27.7 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 1 | 1 | AI | AI |
| 8 | O | 36.5 | 27.7 | 5.2 | 6.3 | 2 | 1 | VI | AI |
| 9 | I | 42.1 | 36.5 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 10 | O | 56.1 | 63.6 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 11 | I | 41.6 | 22.3 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 3 | 1 | N | AI |
| 12 | O | 36.8 | 33.9 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 4 | 3 | N | N |
| 13 | I | 27.3 | 22.6 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2 | 2 | AI | AI |
| 14 | O | 31.5 | 27.6 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 3 | 3 | N | AI |
| 15 | I | 51.2 | 56.2 | 8.5 | 6.6 | 2 | 2 | VI | VI |
| 16 | O | 14.3 | 19.6 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 1 | 1 | AI | AI |
| 17 | I | 17.4 | 19.1 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 1 | 1 | AI | AI |
| 18 | O | 31.1 | 34.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 3 | 4 | N | N |
| 19 | I | 16.2 | 20.0 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 2 | 2 | AI | AI |
| 20 | O | 27.2 | 25.3 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 2 | 2 | AI | AI |
| 21 | I | 17.0 | 14.7 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 2 | 2 | AI | AI |
| 22 | O | 19.7 | 23.0 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 1 | 1 | AI | AI |
| 23 | I | 43.9 | 41.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4 | 4 | N | N |
Table 3.
Distribution of diagnosis and grade of pharmacological erection between the group with intracavernosal injection and the oral vardenafil with sexual stimulation group
XML Download