In-Office BPH Treatment Comparison
|Procedure Characteristic||Cooled Thermotherapy 1||Prostiva RF Therapy 2|
|Destroys prostatic tissue versus holding prostatic tissue out of the way|
|Avoids a permanent implant|
|Low rate of side effects|
|Symptom improvement after 1 year|
|Supported by 5 year effectiveness data|
Patient costs are based on 20% Patient co-pay for CY2015 Non-Facility National Average Reimbursement for each procedure, based on CMS CY2015 Medicare Part B Physician Fee Schedule. Assumes maximum number of four implants as allowed under the Medicare National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI).
1 Mynderse, L, Roehrborn, C, Partin A, Preminger G, Cote E. Results of a 5-year multicenter trial of a new generation cooled high energy transurethral microwave thermal therapy catheter for BPH. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1804-1810.
2 Hill, B, Belville W, Bruskewitz R, Issa M, Perez-Marrero R, Roehrborn C, Terris M, Naslund M. TUNA versus TURP for the treatment of symptomatic BPH: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2336-2340.