成人未破裂脑动静脉畸形的治疗:一项最新的网络荟萃分析。

IF 1.2 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurointervention Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5469/neuroint.2023.00171
Adam A Dmytriw, Jerry Ku, Sherief Ghozy, Sahibjot Grewal, Nicole M Cancelliere, Ahmed Y Azzam, Robert W Regenhardt, James D Rabinov, Christopher J Stapleton, Krunal Patel, Aman B Patel, Vitor Mendes Pereira, Michael Tymianski
{"title":"成人未破裂脑动静脉畸形的治疗:一项最新的网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Adam A Dmytriw,&nbsp;Jerry Ku,&nbsp;Sherief Ghozy,&nbsp;Sahibjot Grewal,&nbsp;Nicole M Cancelliere,&nbsp;Ahmed Y Azzam,&nbsp;Robert W Regenhardt,&nbsp;James D Rabinov,&nbsp;Christopher J Stapleton,&nbsp;Krunal Patel,&nbsp;Aman B Patel,&nbsp;Vitor Mendes Pereira,&nbsp;Michael Tymianski","doi":"10.5469/neuroint.2023.00171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The management of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ubAVMs) is a complex challenge to neurovascular practitioners. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the optimal management of ubAVMs comparing conservative management, embolization, radiosurgery, microsurgical resection, and multimodality. The search strategy was developed a priori according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant papers. Using R version 4.1.1., a frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different management modalities for the ubAVMs. Overall, the conservative group had the lowest risk of rupture (P-score=0.77), and the lowest rate of complications was found in the conservative group (P-score=1). Among different interventions, the multimodality group had the highest rupture risk (P-score=0.34), the lowest overall complications (P-score=0.75), the best functional improvement (P-score=0.65), and the lowest overall mortality (P-score=0.8). However, multimodality treatment showed a significantly higher risk of rupture (odds ratio [OR]=2.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=1.18-3.86) and overall complication rate (OR=5.56; 95% CI=3.37-9.15) compared to conservative management; nevertheless, there were no significant differences in overall mortality or functional independence when considered independently. Conservative management is associated with the lowest rupture risk and complication rate overall. A multimodal approach is the best option when considering mortality rates and functional improvement in the context of existing morbidity/symptoms. Microsurgery, embolization, and radiosurgery alone are similar to the natural history in terms of functional improvement and mortality, but have higher complication rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":19140,"journal":{"name":"Neurointervention","volume":"18 2","pages":"80-89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fd/28/neuroint-2023-00171.PMC10318219.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of Adult Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Adam A Dmytriw,&nbsp;Jerry Ku,&nbsp;Sherief Ghozy,&nbsp;Sahibjot Grewal,&nbsp;Nicole M Cancelliere,&nbsp;Ahmed Y Azzam,&nbsp;Robert W Regenhardt,&nbsp;James D Rabinov,&nbsp;Christopher J Stapleton,&nbsp;Krunal Patel,&nbsp;Aman B Patel,&nbsp;Vitor Mendes Pereira,&nbsp;Michael Tymianski\",\"doi\":\"10.5469/neuroint.2023.00171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The management of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ubAVMs) is a complex challenge to neurovascular practitioners. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the optimal management of ubAVMs comparing conservative management, embolization, radiosurgery, microsurgical resection, and multimodality. The search strategy was developed a priori according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant papers. Using R version 4.1.1., a frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different management modalities for the ubAVMs. Overall, the conservative group had the lowest risk of rupture (P-score=0.77), and the lowest rate of complications was found in the conservative group (P-score=1). Among different interventions, the multimodality group had the highest rupture risk (P-score=0.34), the lowest overall complications (P-score=0.75), the best functional improvement (P-score=0.65), and the lowest overall mortality (P-score=0.8). However, multimodality treatment showed a significantly higher risk of rupture (odds ratio [OR]=2.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=1.18-3.86) and overall complication rate (OR=5.56; 95% CI=3.37-9.15) compared to conservative management; nevertheless, there were no significant differences in overall mortality or functional independence when considered independently. Conservative management is associated with the lowest rupture risk and complication rate overall. A multimodal approach is the best option when considering mortality rates and functional improvement in the context of existing morbidity/symptoms. Microsurgery, embolization, and radiosurgery alone are similar to the natural history in terms of functional improvement and mortality, but have higher complication rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurointervention\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"80-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fd/28/neuroint-2023-00171.PMC10318219.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurointervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2023.00171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurointervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2023.00171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

未破裂脑动静脉畸形(ubAVMs)的管理是一个复杂的挑战神经血管从业者。本荟萃分析旨在比较保守治疗、栓塞、放射外科、显微外科切除和多模式治疗,确定ubAVMs的最佳治疗方法。搜索策略是根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目先验地制定的。我们检索了Ovid Medline、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库,以确定相关论文。使用R版本4.1.1。,进行了频率网络元分析,比较了ubAVMs的不同管理方式。总体而言,保守组破裂风险最低(P-score=0.77),并发症发生率最低(P-score=1)。在不同的干预措施中,多模式组的破裂风险最高(p值=0.34),总并发症最低(p值=0.75),功能改善最佳(p值=0.65),总死亡率最低(p值=0.8)。然而,多模式治疗显示出更高的破裂风险(优势比[OR]=2.13;95%可信区间[95% CI]=1.18-3.86)和总并发症发生率(OR=5.56;95% CI=3.37 ~ 9.15);然而,当单独考虑时,总体死亡率或功能独立性没有显著差异。总的来说,保守治疗与最低的破裂风险和并发症发生率相关。在现有发病率/症状的情况下考虑死亡率和功能改善时,多模式方法是最佳选择。显微手术、栓塞和放射手术在功能改善和死亡率方面与自然史相似,但并发症发生率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Management of Adult Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.

The management of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ubAVMs) is a complex challenge to neurovascular practitioners. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the optimal management of ubAVMs comparing conservative management, embolization, radiosurgery, microsurgical resection, and multimodality. The search strategy was developed a priori according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant papers. Using R version 4.1.1., a frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different management modalities for the ubAVMs. Overall, the conservative group had the lowest risk of rupture (P-score=0.77), and the lowest rate of complications was found in the conservative group (P-score=1). Among different interventions, the multimodality group had the highest rupture risk (P-score=0.34), the lowest overall complications (P-score=0.75), the best functional improvement (P-score=0.65), and the lowest overall mortality (P-score=0.8). However, multimodality treatment showed a significantly higher risk of rupture (odds ratio [OR]=2.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=1.18-3.86) and overall complication rate (OR=5.56; 95% CI=3.37-9.15) compared to conservative management; nevertheless, there were no significant differences in overall mortality or functional independence when considered independently. Conservative management is associated with the lowest rupture risk and complication rate overall. A multimodal approach is the best option when considering mortality rates and functional improvement in the context of existing morbidity/symptoms. Microsurgery, embolization, and radiosurgery alone are similar to the natural history in terms of functional improvement and mortality, but have higher complication rates.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Use of Macrocyclic Contrast Agents and Woven EndoBridge-Assisted Embolization for Direct Carotid-Cavernous Fistulas Due to Aneurysm Rupture. First-Line Aspiration Thrombectomy of M2 Occlusions with a Novel Reperfusion Catheter (REDTM 62): Real-World Experience from Two Tertiary Comprehensive Stroke Centers. Coil Embolization of a Ruptured Anterior Spinal Artery Aneurysm Associated with Spinal Cord Arteriovenous Malformation. Delayed Pontomesencephalic and Cervical Cord Venous Drainage Followed by Contralateral Carotid-Cavernous Fistula after Craniofacial Fractures: A Case Report. Endovascular Treatment of Scalp Arteriovenous Fistula: Transvenous Onyx Embolization with Balloon Occlusion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1