Huanwen Chen, Matthew K McIntyre, Peter Kan, Dheeraj Gandhi, Marco Colasurdo
{"title":"Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Nonacute Subdural Hematoma: A Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Huanwen Chen, Matthew K McIntyre, Peter Kan, Dheeraj Gandhi, Marco Colasurdo","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has emerged as a novel treatment for non-acute subdural hematoma (SDH), particularly for reducing the risk of SDH recurrence. Recently, 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of MMAE as an adjunct to conventional management (surgical or observant) have concluded their investigation and reported their outcomes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our goal was to synthesize trial results to provide more definitive guidance on the role of MMAE in the management of non-acute SDH.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The MEDLINE database from inception up to November 23, 2024 was used. English-language clinical articles reporting large randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 100 or more) investigating the efficacy and safety of MMAE for patients with non-acute subdural hematoma were identified.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Five trials were identified-EMBOLISE, STEM, MAGIC-MT, EMPROTECT, and MEMBRANE.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The primary efficacy end point was SDH treatment failure (broadly defined as SDH recurrence or requirement of surgical rescue) within 3 to 6 months. Safety end points include death and stroke.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>There was significant heterogeneity in terms of patient populations as well as reported outcomes. Overall, MMAE was associated with significantly lower odds of SDH treatment failure (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.39-0.67], <i>P</i> < .001), with minimal inter study heterogeneity. Compared with conventional management, MMAE was not significantly associated with different odds of death (OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.36-2.99], <i>P</i> = .95) or stroke (OR 1.10 [95% CI 0.36-3.39], <i>P</i> = .86).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Our meta-analysis is limited by selection bias and high heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides high-level evidence that, for patients with non-acute SDH, MMAE is a safe and effective adjunct to conventional management for preventing treatment failure.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has emerged as a novel treatment for non-acute subdural hematoma (SDH), particularly for reducing the risk of SDH recurrence. Recently, 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of MMAE as an adjunct to conventional management (surgical or observant) have concluded their investigation and reported their outcomes.
Purpose: Our goal was to synthesize trial results to provide more definitive guidance on the role of MMAE in the management of non-acute SDH.
Data sources: The MEDLINE database from inception up to November 23, 2024 was used. English-language clinical articles reporting large randomized controlled trials (n = 100 or more) investigating the efficacy and safety of MMAE for patients with non-acute subdural hematoma were identified.
Study selection: Five trials were identified-EMBOLISE, STEM, MAGIC-MT, EMPROTECT, and MEMBRANE.
Data analysis: The primary efficacy end point was SDH treatment failure (broadly defined as SDH recurrence or requirement of surgical rescue) within 3 to 6 months. Safety end points include death and stroke.
Data synthesis: There was significant heterogeneity in terms of patient populations as well as reported outcomes. Overall, MMAE was associated with significantly lower odds of SDH treatment failure (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.39-0.67], P < .001), with minimal inter study heterogeneity. Compared with conventional management, MMAE was not significantly associated with different odds of death (OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.36-2.99], P = .95) or stroke (OR 1.10 [95% CI 0.36-3.39], P = .86).
Limitations: Our meta-analysis is limited by selection bias and high heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes.
Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence that, for patients with non-acute SDH, MMAE is a safe and effective adjunct to conventional management for preventing treatment failure.