(230) Investigating the Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Predictors of Response to Low-Intensity Shockwave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction
Authors: Yu B , Saffati G , Song J , Kassab J , Naeem T , Patel S , Lipshultz L , Khera M 
Published: February 2024

Abstract

Introduction
Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects 52% of men in the US, with treatment modalities varying significantly in their degree of invasiveness. Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LI-SWT) is an emerging non-invasive therapy that uses acoustic waves to improve cavernosal arterial flow by inducing microtrauma and subsequent angiogenesis, in addition to enhancing tissue regeneration and reducing local inflammation.

Objective
Our objective is to investigate the efficacy of LI-SWT, identify factors predictive of response, and explore patient satisfaction and attitudes towards the therapy.

Methods
An IRB-approved retrospective chart review and survey study was conducted, examining 102 men who underwent LI-SWT for ED between 2009-2022 at a single tertiary referral center. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in JMP.

Results
Out of 102 men, 50 (49.0%) subjects responded to the survey. 22 (44.0%) men reported clinical responses to LI-SWT, with an average improvement of 1.46 on the validated Erection Hardness Score (EHS; scale 0-5). Clinical responders noticed their first response after a mean of 3.53 treatments. 48 of the respondents (96.0%) had previously trialed PDE5 inhibitors, while 18 (36.0%) men previously trialed intracavernosal injections (ICI). On univariate analysis, alcohol use (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.77, p =0.015) and prior ICI (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-0.95, p=0.036) use were both associated with lower odds of response to LI-SWT. Interestingly, history of radical prostatectomy (RP) did not correlate with LI-SWT response (p=0.117). These results were redemonstrated on multivariate logistic regression, with alcohol use (OR 0.23, p=0.039) and prior ICI use (OR 0.17, p=0.047) again predicting lower odds of LI-SWT response. Of 28 men who did not benefit from LI-SWT, 5 (18%) progressed to ICI, and 3 (11%) progressed to inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Out of all respondents, only 2 men (4%) experienced side effects, which consisted of mild transient pain/paresthesia. No hematomas or bruising were reported, including 8 men on anticoagulants. Clinical responders demonstrated a higher mean satisfaction score of 7.1 on the 10-point Likert scale (somewhat satisfied) compared to non-responders who scored an average satisfaction score of 2.3 (somewhat dissatisfied). Surprisingly, the majority (66%) of the survey respondents were willing to try LI-SWT again, including 54% of first time non-responders.

Conclusions
Patients with a history of alcohol use and/or prior ICI use were associated with a lower likelihood of response to LI-SWT. LI-SWT demonstrated promising results as a non-invasive option for ED treatment, including treatment refractory ED as well as post-prostatectomy ED, with minimal adverse events. Responders viewed LI-SWT favorably as a modality for treating ED, and the majority of patients who had undergone LI-SWT were willing to try it again. These findings support the use of LI-SWT before resorting to more invasive ED therapies, including surgery.

Disclosure
Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Mohit Khera - consultant for Endo, Petros, AbbVie, Tolmar, Marius, Halozyme, Boston Scientific.