Search

Background and Objectives: The benefit of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) has been recently demonstrated in a series of clinical trials. Whether MMAE benefits "trial-ineligible" patients remains elusive. We thus sought to explore the potential benefit of MMAE in neurologically stable (modified Rankin Scale ≤3) patients with "trial-ineligible" CSDHs because of large size: Thickness >15 mm and/or midline shift ≥5 mm., Methods: A prospectively maintained database was reviewed to identify trial-ineligible CSDHs undergoing standalone MMAE. Surgical rescue rate, hematoma resolution, and neurological deterioration after hematoma progression were evaluated and compared with trial-eligible counterparts. Effect sizes were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and radiological features using multivariable regression., Results: Of 150 standalone MMAE procedures, 92 (61%) were performed in "trial-ineligible" cases: 41% with CSDH thickness >15 mm, 21% with midline shift ≥5 mm, and 38% with both. The surgical rescue rate was 7.6% in the trial-ineligible cohort. Over a median follow-up of 62.5 days, 88.9% cases achieved satisfactory hematoma resolution (≥50% in thickness); 76% had satisfactory resolution at 90-day follow-up. Antithrombotic resumption was a risk factor for surgical rescue (adjusted odds ratio 9.64 [95% CI, 1.33-69.74]; P = .02). Surgical rescue and hematoma resolution did not significantly differ between trial-ineligible and trial-eligible cohorts (P = .87 for surgical rescue rate and P = .85 for hematoma resolution rate)., Conclusion: This study emphasizes the considerable prevalence of potentially "trial-ineligible" patients with CSDHs because of large size that may still benefit from standalone MMAE., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has emerged as a promising modality for chronic/subacute subdural hematoma treatment; however, consensus regarding embolization technique and embolisate has not been achieved. We thus sought to compare the efficacy of distinct MMAE techniques and embolisate., Methods: An institutional registry was reviewed to identify patients undergoing standalone MMAE for symptomatic chronic/subacute subdural hematoma. Surgical rescue rate and time preceding 50% hematoma resolution were evaluated across 3 technical groups: aggressive penetration (AP), nonaggressive penetration with proximal coil embolization (NP-PC), and nonaggressive penetration alone (NP). Effect sizes were adjusted for demographic, neurological and radiological features through multivariable logistic and Cox regression., Results: Among 117 procedures, 33.3% achieved AP, 36.8% had NP-PC, and 29.9% had NP. The rate of surgical rescue was 2.6% after AP, 9.3% for NP-PC, and 11.4% for NP. In patients not undergoing rescue surgery, 82.4% achieved hematoma resolution ≥50% at a median imaging follow-up of 56 days; AP or NP-PC were each statistically significantly associated with enhanced hematoma resolution as compared with NP (P = .02). Similarly, sensitivity analysis within medium-size hematoma and antiplatelet/anticoagulation-at-admission subgroups revealed a superiority of resolution after AP or NP-PC. A unique, comparative secondary analysis of liquid embolisate (Onyx vs n-butyl cyanoacrylate) revealed no impact on rate of surgical rescue or hematoma resolution., Conclusion: AP was associated with the lowest rate of surgical rescue, while both AP and NP-PC were associated with improved rates of hematoma resolution., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)