Coil only middle meningeal artery embolization versus particles or liquid embolic agents for chronic subdural hematoma.

IF 4.3 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Adeline Fecker, Matthew K McIntyre, Huanwen Chen, Jefferson O Abaricia, Ryan Priest, Gary Nesbit, Marco Colasurdo
{"title":"Coil only middle meningeal artery embolization versus particles or liquid embolic agents for chronic subdural hematoma.","authors":"Adeline Fecker, Matthew K McIntyre, Huanwen Chen, Jefferson O Abaricia, Ryan Priest, Gary Nesbit, Marco Colasurdo","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2025-023848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) with particles or liquid embolic agents has been shown to be effective, but can carry a theoretical risk of off-target embolization via dangerous collaterals and anastomoses. Primary coiling has been suggested as a safer alternative, particularly for patients with dangerous anastomoses. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil only for cSDH patients compared with liquid or particle embolic agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of cSDH patients who underwent MMAE between 2023 and 2025. Patients were stratified by coil only versus liquid/particle embolization strategy. The primary outcome was rate of surgical rescue; secondary outcomes included the amount and rate of hematoma resorption. Subgroup analysis was performed among those with identified dangerous anastomoses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 168 patients were included; 88 (52.4%) underwent coil only embolization. Coil only patients had significantly lower rates of altered mental status (P=0.010), diabetes (P=0.015), and thrombocytopenia (P<0.001), but higher rates of anticoagulant use (P=0.017). During study follow-up (median duration 52 and 74 days for coil only and liquid/particle, respectively; P=0.23), coil only was not associated with different rates of surgical rescue (5.7% vs 2.5%, P=0.52), percentage hematoma resorption (P=0.82), or percentage hematoma resorption rate (P=0.86). There was no difference in these outcomes among the 65 (39%) patients with angiographic evidence of vascular anastomosis or dangerous collaterals (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the study indicate that coil only MMAE may be a safe and equally effective alternative to particle or liquid embolics for patients with cSDH.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2025-023848","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) with particles or liquid embolic agents has been shown to be effective, but can carry a theoretical risk of off-target embolization via dangerous collaterals and anastomoses. Primary coiling has been suggested as a safer alternative, particularly for patients with dangerous anastomoses. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil only for cSDH patients compared with liquid or particle embolic agents.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of cSDH patients who underwent MMAE between 2023 and 2025. Patients were stratified by coil only versus liquid/particle embolization strategy. The primary outcome was rate of surgical rescue; secondary outcomes included the amount and rate of hematoma resorption. Subgroup analysis was performed among those with identified dangerous anastomoses.

Results: A total of 168 patients were included; 88 (52.4%) underwent coil only embolization. Coil only patients had significantly lower rates of altered mental status (P=0.010), diabetes (P=0.015), and thrombocytopenia (P<0.001), but higher rates of anticoagulant use (P=0.017). During study follow-up (median duration 52 and 74 days for coil only and liquid/particle, respectively; P=0.23), coil only was not associated with different rates of surgical rescue (5.7% vs 2.5%, P=0.52), percentage hematoma resorption (P=0.82), or percentage hematoma resorption rate (P=0.86). There was no difference in these outcomes among the 65 (39%) patients with angiographic evidence of vascular anastomosis or dangerous collaterals (P>0.05).

Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that coil only MMAE may be a safe and equally effective alternative to particle or liquid embolics for patients with cSDH.

慢性硬膜下血肿的线圈栓塞与颗粒或液体栓塞剂的对比。
背景:使用颗粒或液体栓塞剂对慢性硬膜下血肿(cSDH)进行中脑膜动脉栓塞(MMAE)已被证明是有效的,但理论上可能存在通过危险的侧支和吻合口进行脱靶栓塞的风险。初步卷绕被认为是一种更安全的选择,特别是对于有危险吻合口的患者。本研究旨在评价线圈仅用于cSDH患者与液体或颗粒栓塞剂的安全性和有效性。方法:我们对2023年至2025年间接受MMAE的cSDH患者进行了回顾性研究。采用线圈栓塞与液体/颗粒栓塞策略对患者进行分层。主要观察指标为手术抢救率;次要结果包括血肿吸收的数量和速率。对确定的危险吻合口进行亚组分析。结果:共纳入168例患者;88例(52.4%)仅行线圈栓塞。线圈组患者的精神状态改变(P=0.010)、糖尿病(P=0.015)和血小板减少(P0.05)的发生率均显著降低。结论:研究结果表明,对于cSDH患者,仅线圈MMAE可能是一种安全且同样有效的替代颗粒或液体栓塞的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.60%
发文量
291
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) is a leading peer review journal for scientific research and literature pertaining to the field of neurointerventional surgery. The journal launch follows growing professional interest in neurointerventional techniques for the treatment of a range of neurological and vascular problems including stroke, aneurysms, brain tumors, and spinal compression.The journal is owned by SNIS and is also the official journal of the Interventional Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR), the Canadian Interventional Neuro Group, the Hong Kong Neurological Society (HKNS) and the Neuroradiological Society of Taiwan.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信