The use and abuse of survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves in surgical trials.

BACKGROUND: Survival analysis based on Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves, initially devised for oncology trials, have frequently been used in other contexts where fundamental statistical assumptions (such as a constant hazard ratio) are not satisfied. This is almost always the case in trials that compare surgery with medical management. METHODS: We review a trial that compared extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery (EC-IC bypass) with medical management (MM) of patients with symptomatic occlusion of the carotid or middle cerebral artery, where it was claimed that surgery was of no benefit. We discuss a hypothetical study and review other neurovascular trials which have also used survival analysis to compare results. RESULTS: The trial comparing EC-IC bypass and MM did not satisfy the fundamental proportional hazard assumption necessary for valid analyses. This was also the case for two prior EC-IC bypass trials, as well as for other landmark neurovascular studies, such as the trials comparing endarterectomy with MM for carotid stenoses, or for the trial that compared intervention and MM for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations. While minor deviations may have little effect on large trials, it may be impossible to show the benefits of surgery when trial size is small and deviations large. CONCLUSION: Survival analyses are inappropriate in RCTs comparing surgery with conservative management, unless survival is calculated after the postoperative period. Alternative ways to compare final clinical outcomes, using for example a fixed follow-up period, should be planned for preventive surgical trials that compare intervention with conservative management.

Understanding categories or subgroups and a common clinical reasoning error: the example of aneurysm size and neck width.

BACKGROUND: Individualized clinical decisions are often made by considering some patient or lesion characteristics that are thought to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of treatment. For example, aneurysm size and neck width have often been determinants of treatment choices in neurovascular practice. METHODS: We review observational and randomized data on the influence of aneurysm or neck size on angiographic results of coiling, stent-assisted coiling, or surgical clipping. New RCT data are used to demonstrate the shortcomings of managing patients using clinical judgment regarding patient or lesion characteristics. We discuss why clinical decisions should not be based on comparisons of different patients treated by the same treatment. Clinical decision making requires a comparison between the same patients treated with different treatments in a randomized trial. RESULTS: The results of endovascular treatment of large or wide-necked aneurysms are always inferior to those of small or narrow-necked aneurysms, in observational as well as in randomized studies. However, this fact alone is not sufficient to infer that patients with small aneurysms should be coiled, while those with large aneurysms should be managed with stenting or surgical clipping. The purported superiority of clipping for large aneurysms could not be demonstrated in recent RCTs (while surgery was found superior for small aneurysms). Similarly, the superiority of stent-assisted coiling for wide-necked aneurysms was not shown in another recent RCT. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience and observational studies alone can mislead practice. Proper clinical decisions for individuals requires randomized evidence.

The small trial problem.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized trials that aim to assess new or commonly used medical or surgical interventions have been so small that the validity of conclusions becomes questionable. METHODS: We illustrate the small trial problem using the power calculation of five Cochrane-reviewed studies that compared vertebroplasty versus placebo interventions. We discuss some of the reasons why the statistical admonition not to dichotomize continuous variables may not apply to the calculation of the number of patients required for trials to be meaningful. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled vertebroplasty trials planned to recruit between 23 and 71 patients per group. Four of five studies used the standardized mean difference of a continuous pain variable (centimeters on the visual analog scale (VAS)) to plan implausibly small trials. What is needed is not a mean effect at the population level but a measure of efficacy at the patient level. Clinical practice concerns the care of individual patients that vary in many more respects than the variation around the mean of a single selected variable. The inference from trial to practice concerns the frequency of success of the experimental intervention performed one patient at a time. A comparison of the proportions of patients reaching a certain threshold is a more meaningful method that appropriately requires larger trials. CONCLUSION: Most placebo-controlled vertebroplasty trials used comparisons of means of a continuous variable and were consequently very small. Randomized trials should instead be large enough to account for the diversity of future patients and practices. They should offer an evaluation of a clinically meaningful number of interventions performed in various contexts. Implications of this principle are not specific to placebo-controlled surgical trials. Trials designed to inform practice require a per-patient comparison of outcomes and the size of the trial should be planned accordingly.

Endovascular treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: clinical outcomes of patients included in the registry of a pragmatic randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The role of endovascular treatment in the management of patients with brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains uncertain. AVM embolization can be offered as stand-alone curative therapy or prior to surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (pre-embolization). The Treatment of Brain AVMs Study (TOBAS) is an all-inclusive pragmatic study that comprises two randomized trials and multiple registries. METHODS: Results from the TOBAS curative and pre-embolization registries are reported. The primary outcome for this report is death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score > 2) at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes include angiographic results, perioperative serious adverse events (SAEs), and permanent treatment-related complications leading to an mRS score > 2. RESULTS: From June 2014 to May 2021, 1010 patients were recruited in TOBAS. Embolization was chosen as the primary curative treatment for 116 patients and pre-embolization prior to surgery or SRS for 92 patients. Clinical and angiographic outcomes were available in 106 (91%) of 116 and 77 (84%) of 92 patients, respectively. In the curative embolization registry, 70% of AVMs were ruptured, and 62% were low-grade AVMs (Spetzler-Martin grade I or II), while the pre-embolization registry had 70% ruptured AVMs and 58% low-grade AVMs. The primary outcome of death or disability (mRS score > 2) occurred in 15 (14%, 95% CI 8%-22%) of the 106 patients in the curative embolization registry (4 [12%, 95% CI 5%-28%] of 32 unruptured AVMs and 11 [15%, 95% CI 8%-25%] of 74 ruptured AVMs) and 9 (12%, 95% CI 6%-21%) of the 77 patients in the pre-embolization registry (4 [17%, 95% CI 7%-37%] of 23 unruptured AVMs and 5 [9%, 95% CI 4%-20%] of 54 ruptured AVMs) at 2 years. Embolization alone was confirmed to occlude the AVM in 32 (30%, 95% CI 21%-40%) of the 106 curative attempts and in 9 (12%, 95% CI 6%-21%) of 77 patients in the pre-embolization registry. SAEs occurred in 28 of the 106 attempted curative patients (26%, 95% CI 18%-35%, including 21 new symptomatic hemorrhages [20%, 95% CI 13%-29%]). Five of the new hemorrhages were in previously unruptured AVMs (n = 32; 16%, 95% CI 5%-33%). Of the 77 pre-embolization patients, 18 had SAEs (23%, 95% CI 15%-34%), including 12 new symptomatic hemorrhages [16%, 95% CI 9%-26%]). Three of the hemorrhages were in previously unruptured AVMs (3/23; 13%, 95% CI 3%-34%). CONCLUSIONS: Embolization as a curative treatment for brain AVMs was often incomplete. Hemorrhagic complications were frequent, even when the specified intent was pre-embolization before surgery or SRS. Because the role of endovascular treatment remains uncertain, it should preferably, when possible, be offered in the context of a randomized trial.

Patient Selection in a Pragmatic Study on the Management of Patients with Brain Arteriovenous Malformations.

BACKGROUND: The Treatment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations Study (TOBAS) is an all-inclusive pragmatic study comprising 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Patients excluded from the RCTs are followed in parallel treatment and observation registries, allowing a comparison between RCT and registry patients. METHODS: The first randomized clinical trial (RCT-1) offers 1:1 randomized allocation of intervention versus conservative management for patients with arteriovenous malformation (AVM). The second randomized clinical trial (RCT-2) allocates 1:1 pre-embolization or no pre-embolization to surgery or radiosurgery patients judged treatable with or without embolization. Characteristics of RCT patients are reported and compared to registry patients. RESULTS: From June 2014 to May 2021, 1010 patients with AVM were recruited; 498 patients were observed and 373 were included in the treatment registries. Randomized allocation in RCT-1 was applied to 139 (26%) of the 512 patients (including 127 of 222 [57%] with unruptured AVMs) considered for curative treatment. RCT-1 AVM patients differed (in rupture status, Spetzler-Martin grade and baseline modified Rankin Score) from those in the observation or treatment registries (P < 0.001). Most patients had small (<3 cm; 71%) low-grade (Spetzler-Martin I-II; 64%) unruptured (91%) AVMs. The allocated management was conservative (n = 71) or curative (n = 68), using surgery (n = 39), embolization (n = 16), or stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 13). Pre-embolization was considered for 179/309 (58%) patients allocated/assigned to surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery; 87/179 (49%) were included in RCT-2. RCT-2 patient AVMs differed in size, eloquence and grade from patients of the pre-embolization registry (P < 0.01). Most had small (<3 cm in 82%) low-grade (83%) AVMs in non-eloquent brain (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients included in the RCTs differ significantly from registry patients. Meaningful results can be obtained if multiple centers actively participate in the TOBAS RCTs.

Surgical treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: clinical outcomes of patients included in the registry of a pragmatic randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Treatment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations Study (TOBAS) is a pragmatic study that includes 2 randomized trials and registries of treated or conservatively managed patients. The authors report the results of the surgical registry. METHODS: TOBAS patients are managed according to an algorithm that combines clinical judgment and randomized allocation. For patients considered for curative treatment, clinicians selected from surgery, endovascular therapy, or radiation therapy as the primary curative method, and whether observation was a reasonable alternative. When surgery was selected and observation was deemed unreasonable, the patient was not included in the randomized controlled trial but placed in the surgical registry. The primary outcome of the trial was mRS score > 2 at 10 years (at last follow-up for the current report). Secondary outcomes include angiographic results, perioperative serious adverse events, and permanent treatment-related complications leading to mRS score > 2. RESULTS: From June 2014 to May 2021, 1010 patients were recruited at 30 TOBAS centers. Surgery was selected for 229/512 patients (44%) considered for curative treatment; 77 (34%) were included in the surgery versus observation randomized trial and 152 (66%) were placed in the surgical registry. Surgical registry patients had 124/152 (82%) ruptured and 28/152 (18%) unruptured arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), with the majority categorized as low-grade Spetzler-Martin grade I-II AVM (118/152 [78%]). Thirteen patients were excluded, leaving 139 patients for analysis. Embolization was performed prior to surgery in 78/139 (56%) patients. Surgical angiographic cure was obtained in 123/139 all-grade (89%, 95% CI 82%-93%) and 105/110 low-grade (95%, 95% CI 90%-98%) AVM patients. At the mean follow-up of 18.1 months, 16 patients (12%, 95% CI 7%-18%) had reached the primary safety outcome of mRS score > 2, including 11/16 who had a baseline mRS score ≥ 3 due to previous AVM rupture. Serious adverse events occurred in 29 patients (21%, 95% CI 15%-28%). Permanent treatment-related complications leading to mRS score > 2 occurred in 6/139 patients (4%, 95% CI 2%-9%), 5 (83%) of whom had complications due to preoperative embolization. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of brain AVMs in the TOBAS registry was curative in 88% of patients. The participation of more patients, surgeons, and centers in randomized trials is needed to definitively establish the role of surgery in the treatment of unruptured brain AVMs. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02098252 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Recruitment in a Pragmatic Randomized Trial on the Management of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES: The Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM) study is a pragmatic trial designed to manage unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) patients within a care research framework. METHODS: CAM is an all-inclusive study. Management options are allocated according to an algorithm combining pre-randomization and clinical judgment. Eligible patients are offered 1:1 randomized allocation of intervention versus conservative management and 1:1 randomization allocation of surgical versus endovascular treatment. Ineligible patients are registered. The primary outcome is survival without dependency (modified Rankin Scale score <3) at 10 years. All UIA patients at 1 center are reported. RESULTS: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 403 UIA patients were recruited: 179 (44%) in one of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 224 (56%) in one of the registries. Conservative management was recommended for 205 of 403 patients (51%); of 198 (49%) patients considered for curative treatment, 159 (80%) were randomly allocated conservative (n = 81) or curative treatment (n = 78). These patients were younger and had larger aneurysms than those in the observation registry (P = 0.004). In 39 of 198 patients (20%), conservative management was not considered reasonable (17 patients were recommended endovascular, 2 surgery, and 20 the RCT comparing endovascular with surgical treatment). In total, 70 patients were recruited in the RCT comparing surgery and endovascular treatment. After informed discussion at time of consent, 141 of 159 patients (89%) agreed with the randomly allocated management plan, while 11% crossed over to the alternative management option. CONCLUSIONS: CAM was successfully integrated into routine practice. Meaningful conclusions can be obtained if multiple centers actively participate in the trial.

Pragmatic trials can address diagnostic controversies: recent lessons from gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the paper is to discuss how a pragmatic definition could change our conception of diagnosis, using gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as an example. STUDY DESIGN: We review the diagnostic controversy that followed an observational study showing a linear relationship between maternal glycaemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes and the resolution proposed 15 years later by a recent pragmatic trial comparing two screening approaches (one- vs two-step) with different diagnostic thresholds. RESULTS: The pragmatic trial involved approximately 24,000 women. The one-step screening strategy using lower GDM thresholds diagnosed twice as many women with GDM, but pregnancy outcomes were not different. We examine how the pragmatic approach integrates research into practice and defines the meaning of a diagnosis according to patient outcomes. The approach is ethically and scientifically sound as compared to the previous methodology, where observational research separated from care gave a theoretical definition of GDM that may have misled medical practice for two decades. CONCLUSION: Pragmatic research integrated into practice can revolutionize our conception of medical diagnosis in the best medical interest of patients.

The Utility of Superselective Rotational Angiography for Frameless Stereotactic Navigation During Craniotomy for Micro-Arteriovenous Malformation.

BACKGROUND: Micro-arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) can present challenges to neurosurgeons with respect to localization during resection. We sought to describe a novel method that merges super-selective 3-dimensional angiographic images with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences to facilitate frameless stereotaxic navigation during AVM surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed comprising cases that employed merging of angiographic and MRI images for navigation purposes. Baseline clinical and imaging features were recorded. The technique and operative experiences were analyzed descriptively and presented alongside detailed illustrative cases. RESULTS: During the review period, 11 cases were identified where this technique was employed. Successful image acquisition and merging was possible in all cases. Complete obliteration of the target pathology was achieved in all cases. Precise localization of the micro-AVMs minimized dissection in eloquent cortex. CONCLUSIONS: Superselective 3-dimensional angiographic images merged to baseline MRI sequences facilitates planning and navigation during surgery for micro-AVMs.

Clinical Uncertainty and Equipoise in the Management of Recurrent Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of glioblastoma (GBM) patients are considered for repeat resection, but evidence regarding best management remains elusive. Our aim was to measure the degree of clinical uncertainty regarding reoperation for patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review of agreement studies examining the question of repeat resection for recurrent GBM. An electronic portfolio of 37 pathologically confirmed recurrent GBM patients including pertinent magnetic resonance images and clinical information was assembled. To measure clinical uncertainty, 26 neurosurgeons from various countries, training backgrounds, and years' experience were asked to select best management (repeat surgery, other nonsurgical management, or conservative), confidence in recommended management, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial comparing surgery with nonsurgical options. Agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. RESULTS: The literature review did not reveal previous agreement studies examining the question. In our study, agreement regarding best management of recurrent GBM was slight, even when management options were dichotomized (repeat surgery vs. other options; κ=0.198 [95% confidence interval: 0.133-0.276]). Country of practice, years' experience, and training background did not change results. Disagreement and clinical uncertainty were more pronounced within clinicians with (κ=0.167 [0.055-0.314]) than clinicians without neuro-oncology fellowship training (κ=0.601 [0.556-0.646]). A majority (51%) of responders were willing to include the patient in a randomized trial comparing repeat surgery with nonsurgical alternatives in 26/37 (69%) of cases. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient uncertainty and equipoise regarding the question of reoperation for patients with recurrent glioblastoma to support the need for a randomized controlled trial.

Surgical or Endovascular Management of Middle Cerebral Artery Aneurysms: A Randomized Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: There are few randomized data comparing clipping and coiling for middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysms. We analyzed results from patients with MCA aneurysms enrolled in the CURES (Collaborative UnRuptured Endovascular vs. Surgery) and ISAT-2 (International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial II) randomized trials. METHODS: Both trials are investigator-led parallel-group 1:1 randomized studies. CURES includes patients with 3-mm to 25-mm unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), and ISAT-2 includes patients with ruptured aneurysms (RA) for whom uncertainty remains after ISAT. The primary outcome measure of CURES is treatment failure: 1) failure to treat the aneurysm, 2) intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up, or 3) residual aneurysm at 1 year. The primary outcome of ISAT-2 is death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale score >2) at 1 year. One-year angiographic outcomes are systematically recorded. RESULTS: There were 100 unruptured and 71 ruptured MCA aneurysms. In CURES, 90 patients with UIA have been treated and 10 await treatment. Surgical and endovascular management of unruptured MCA aneurysms led to treatment failure in 3/42 (7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.19) for clipping and 13/48 (27%; 95% CI, 0.17-0.41) for coiling (P = 0.025). All 71 patients with RA have been treated. In ISAT-2, patients with ruptured MCA aneurysms managed surgically had died or were dependent (modified Rankin Scale score >2) in 7/38 (18%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.33) cases, and 8/33 (24%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.41) for endovascular. One-year imaging results were available in 80 patients with UIA and 62 with RA. Complete aneurysm occlusion was found in 30/40 (75%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86) patients with UIA allocated clipping, and 14/40 (35%; 95% CI, 0.22-0.50) patients with UIA allocated coiling. Complete aneurysm occlusion was found in 24/34 (71%; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83) patients with RA allocated clipping, and 15/28 (54%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.70) patients with RA allocated coiling. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized data from 2 trials show that better efficacy may be obtained with surgical management of patients with MCA aneurysms.

Transvenous Approach for the Treatment of cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations (TATAM): Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous embolisation is a promising technique but the benefits remain uncertain. We hypothesised that transvenous embolisation leads to a higher rate of arteriovenous malformation angiographic occlusion than transarterial embolisation. METHODS: The Transvenous Approach for the Treatment of cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations (TATAM) is an investigator initiated, multicentre, prospective, phase 2, randomised controlled clinical trial. To test the hypothesis that transvenous embolisation is superior to transarterial embolisation for arteriovenous malformation obliteration, 76 patients with arteriovenous malformations considered curable by up to two sessions of endovascular therapy will be randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with either transvenous embolisation (with or without transarterial embolisation) (experimental arm) or transarterial embolisation alone (control arm). The primary endpoint of the trial is complete arteriovenous malformation occlusion, assessed by catheter cerebral angiography. Complete occlusions will be confirmed at 3 months, while incompletely occluded arteriovenous malformations, considered treatment failures, will then be eligible for complementary treatments by surgery, radiation therapy, or even transvenous embolisation. Standard procedural safety outcomes will also be assessed. Patient selection will be validated by a case selection committee, and participating centres with limited experience in transvenous embolisation will be proctored. DISCUSSION: The TATAM trial is a transparent research framework designed to offer a promising but still unvalidated treatment to selected arteriovenous malformation patients. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03691870.

Reporting Interim Results Can Show the Feasibility of Practicing Outcome-Based Neurovascular Care Within Randomized Trials: An Opinion.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of commonly performed surgical interventions are notoriously difficult to conduct. The trial methodology may nevertheless be the best way to offer outcome-based neurovascular care in the presence of uncertainty. One obstacle to promoting such trials is the conventional prohibition of publication and dissemination of interim results as the trial progresses. METHODS: We review the scientific and statistical reasons against the publication of interim analyses as well as exceptions that can occur when 1 treatment is unexpectedly shown to be harmful or when the results of other trials have convincingly shown the comparative benefits of a new intervention. We also discuss the promotion of difficult surgical trials. RESULTS: Reasons to support the conventional ban on publication of interim results include control of statistical errors, prevention of invalid conclusions, and dissemination of false claims of equivalence of rival interventions. In the early phases of a trial, usually 1 treatment cannot be shown superior to the other. We believe, contrary to the received view, that a transparent report of the early progress of certain trials can be justified, even when interim results are inconclusive, to promote the recruitment of participating centers and the practice of a novel way to offer neurovascular care in the presence of uncertainty in the best medical interest of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our opinion, the early publication of inconclusive interim results may increase awareness of the feasibility of surgical care trials.

The Treatment of Brain AVMs Study (TOBAS): an all-inclusive framework to integrate clinical care and research.

OBJECTIVE The management of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) remains controversial. The Treatment of Brain AVMs Study (TOBAS) was designed to manage patients with bAVMs within a clinical research framework. The objective of this study was to study trial feasibility, recruitment rates, patient allocation to the various management groups, and compliance with treatment allocation. METHODS TOBAS combines two randomized care trials (RCTs) and a registry. Designed to be all-inclusive, the study offers randomized allocation of interventional versus conservative management to patients eligible for both options (first RCT), a second RCT testing the role of preembolization as an adjunct to surgery or radiotherapy, and a registry of patients managed using clinical judgment alone. The primary outcome of the first RCT is death from any cause or disabling stroke (modified Rankin Scale score > 2) at 10 years. A pilot phase was initiated at one center to test study feasibility, record the number and characteristics of patients enrolled in the RCTs, and estimate the frequency of crossovers. RESULTS All patients discussed at the multidisciplinary bAVM committee between June 2014 and June 2016 (n = 107) were recruited into the study; 46 in the randomized trials (23 in the first RCT with 21 unruptured bAVMs, 40 in the second RCT with 17 unruptured bAVMs, and 17 in both RCTs), and 61 patients in the registry. Three patients crossed over from surgery to observation (first RCT). CONCLUSIONS Clinical research was successfully integrated with normal practice using TOBAS. Recruitment rates in a single center are encouraging. Whether the trial will provide meaningful results depends on the recruitment of a sufficient number of participating centers. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02098252 (clinicaltrials.gov).

The Treatment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Study (TOBAS): A preliminary inter- and intra-rater agreement study on patient management.

OBJECT: The best management of brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM) patients remains unknown. Randomized allocation may be more readily accepted when there is uncertainty and disagreement regarding the management of potential participants. In planning for a trial, we aimed to assess variability and agreement among physicians managing bAVM patients. METHODS: A portfolio composed of 35 patients was sent to 47 clinicians of various specialties managing bAVM patients. For each patient, physicians were asked their best management decision (surgery/embolization/radiosurgery/conservative), their confidence level, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial comparing conservative and curative management. Seven physicians, who had access to all images of each patient, independently responded twice, to assess inter and intra-rater agreement using kappa statistics. RESULTS: The inter-rater agreement (30 raters, including 16 neuroradiologists) for best management decision was only "fair" (κ [95%CI]=0.210[0.157; 0.295]). Agreement remained below 'substantial' (κ<.6) between physicians of the same specialty, and when no distinctions were made between various treatments (when responses were dichotomized as conservative versus curative). With access to all images the inter-rater agreement remained fair. The intra-rater agreement reached "substantial" only for the dichotomized decisions. Responding clinicians were willing to include 54.4% of patients (mainly unruptured bAVMs) in a randomized trial. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of agreement among clinicians involved in the management of bAVM patients. In this study a substantial proportion of clinicians were willing to offer randomized allocation of management options to a substantial number of patients.

Recruitment in Clinical Trials: The Use of Zelen's Prerandomization in Recent Neurovascular Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized allocation of treatment options is not well accepted within the clinical community. Some methods of implementation may be received more favorably than others. Prerandomization may be an acceptable means to facilitate recruitment in some clinical trials. METHODS: We first compare randomization and prerandomization using illustrative neurovascular trials. We review some problems with conventional trials, Zelen's prerandomization as an alternative method, and the ethical issues that have surrounded prerandomization since its inception in a historic trial. Conventional and Zelen's randomization are then compared with other means to provide and verify care in the context of clinical uncertainty. RESULTS: The major problem with conventional randomization is that consent is requested for 2 management options, one of which the patient will not receive. The problem with prerandomization is that treatment is allocated before the patient has consented to trial participation. Prerandomization may trade recruitment difficulties for excessive crossovers. However, other ways to practice under uncertainty and verify patient outcomes, such as case series and registries, are more ethically and scientifically problematic. CONCLUSIONS: Until the ethical functions of randomized allocation of selected treatment options in the care of patients are recognized by the neurovascular community, Zelen's prerandomization may help recruitment into difficult trials and contribute a means to provide best possible care in the presence of uncertainty.