Comparing stand-alone endovascular embolization versus stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations with Spetzler-Martin grades I-III: a propensity score matched study
Basel Musmar,Nimer Adeeb,Joanna M Roy,Hammam Abdalrazeq,Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris,Elias Atallah,Hamza Adel Salim,Douglas Kondziolka,Jason Sheehan,Christopher S Ogilvy,Howard Riina,Sandeep Kandregula,Adam A Dmytriw,Kareem El Naamani,Ahmed Abdelsalam,Natasha Ironside,Deepak Kumbhare,Cagdas Ataoglu,Muhammed Amir Essibayi,Abdullah Keles,Sandeep Muram,Daniel Sconzo,Arwin Rezai,Ufuk Erginoglu,Johannes Pöppe,Rajeev D Sen,Christoph J Griessenauer,Jan-Karl Burkhardt,Robert M Starke,Mustafa K Baskaya,Laligam N Sekhar,Michael R Levitt,David J Altschul,Malia McAvoy,Assala Aslan,Abdallah Abushehab,Christian Swaid,Adib A Abla,M Reid Gooch,Robert H Rosenwasser,Christopher Stapleton,Matthew Koch,Visish M Srinivasan,Peng R Chen,Spiros Blackburn,Mark J Dannenbaum,Omar Choudhri,Bryan Pukenas,Darren Orbach,Edward Smith,Pascal J Mosimann,Ali Alaraj,Mohammad A Aziz-Sultan,Aman B Patel,Hugo H Cuellar,Michael T Lawton,Jacques Morcos,Bharat Guthikonda,Pascal Jabbour
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-022326
2024-10-04
Abstract:Background: Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are uncommon cerebral lesions that can cause significant neurological complications. Surgical resection is the gold standard for treatment, but endovascular embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are viable alternatives. Objective: To compare the outcomes of endovascular embolization versus SRS in the treatment of AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I-III. Methods: This study combined retrospective data from 10 academic institutions in North America and Europe. Patients aged 1 to 90 years who underwent endovascular embolization or SRS for AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I-III between January 2010 and December 2023 were included. Results: The study included 244 patients, including 84 who had endovascular embolization and 160 who had SRS. Before propensity score matching (PSM), complete obliteration at the last follow-up was achieved in 74.5% of the SRS group compared with 57.8% of the embolization group (OR=0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.48; P=0.01). After propensity score matching, SRS still achieved significantly higher occlusion rates at last follow-up (78.9% vs 55.3%; OR=0.32; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90; P=0.03).Hemorrhagic complications were higher in the embolization group than in the SRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance after PSM (13.2% vs 2.6%; OR=5.6; 95% CI 0.62 to 50.47; P=0.12). Similarly, re-treatment rate was higher in the embolization group (10.5% vs 5.3%; OR=2.11; 95% CI 0.36 to 12.31; P=0.40) compared with the SRS group. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that SRS has a significantly higher obliteration rate at last follow-up compared with endovascular embolization. Also, SRS has a higher tendency for fewer hemorrhagic complications and lower re-treatment rate. Further prospective studies are needed.