Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Predictors of Clinical and Radiographic Failure from 636 Embolizations.

Background Knowledge regarding predictors of clinical and radiographic failures of middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization (MMAE) treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is limited. Purpose To identify predictors of MMAE treatment failure for CSDH. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, consecutive patients who underwent MMAE for CSDH from February 2018 to April 2022 at 13 U.S. centers were included. Clinical failure was defined as hematoma reaccumulation and/or neurologic deterioration requiring rescue surgery. Radiographic failure was defined as a maximal hematoma thickness reduction less than 50% at last imaging (minimum 2 weeks of head CT follow-up). Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent failure predictors, controlling for age, sex, concurrent surgical evacuation, midline shift, hematoma thickness, and pretreatment baseline antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy. Results Overall, 530 patients (mean age, 71.9 years ± 12.8 [SD]; 386 men; 106 with bilateral lesions) underwent 636 MMAE procedures. At presentation, the median CSDH thickness was 15 mm and 31.3% (166 of 530) and 21.7% (115 of 530) of patients were receiving antiplatelet and anticoagulation medications, respectively. Clinical failure occurred in 36 of 530 patients (6.8%, over a median follow-up of 4.1 months) and radiographic failure occurred in 26.3% (137 of 522) of procedures. At multivariable analysis, independent predictors of clinical failure were pretreatment anticoagulation therapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.23; P = .007) and an MMA diameter less than 1.5 mm (OR, 2.52; P = .027), while liquid embolic agents were associated with nonfailure (OR, 0.32; P = .011). For radiographic failure, female sex (OR, 0.36; P = .001), concurrent surgical evacuation (OR, 0.43; P = .009), and a longer imaging follow-up time were associated with nonfailure. Conversely, MMA diameter less than 1.5 mm (OR, 1.7; P = .044), midline shift (OR, 1.1; P = .02), and superselective MMA catheterization (without targeting the main MMA trunk) (OR, 2; P = .029) were associated with radiographic failure. Sensitivity analyses retained these associations. Conclusion Multiple independent predictors of failure of MMAE treatment for chronic subdural hematomas were identified, with small diameter (<1.5 mm) being the only factor independently associated with both clinical and radiographic failures. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chaudhary and Gemmete in this issue.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The choice of anesthesia type (general anesthesia [GA] vs nongeneral anesthesia [non-GA]) in middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) procedures for chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH) differs between institutions and left to care team discretion given lack of standard guidelines. We compare the outcomes of GA vs non-GA in MMAE. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving MMAE for cSDH at 14 North American centers (2018-2023) were included. Clinical, cSDH characteristics, and technical/clinical outcomes were compared between the GA/non-GA groups. Using propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched controlling for age, baseline modified Rankin Scale, concurrent/prior surgery, hematoma thickness/midline shift, and baseline antiplatelet/anticoagulation. The primary end points included surgical rescue and radiographic success rates (≥50% reduction in maximum hematoma thickness with minimum 2 weeks of imaging). Secondary end points included technical feasibility, procedural complications, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-eight patients (median age 73 years, 73.2% male patients) underwent 956 MMAE procedures, 667 (70.4%) were non-GA and 280 were GA (29.6%). After running 1:3 PSM algorithm, this resulted in 153 and 296 in the GA and non-GA groups, respectively. There were no baseline/procedural differences between the groups except radial access more significantly used in the non-GA group (P = .001). There was no difference between the groups in procedural technical feasibility, complications rate, length of stay, surgical rescue rates, or favorable functional outcome at the last follow-up. Subsequent 1:1 sensitivity PSM retained the same results. Bilateral MMAE procedures were more performed under non-GA group (75.8% vs 67.2%; P = .01); no differences were noted in clinical/radiographic outcomes between bilateral vs unilateral MMAE, except for longer procedure duration in the bilateral group (median 73 minutes [IQR 48.3-100] vs 54 minutes [39-75]; P < .0001). Another PSM analysis comparing GA vs non-GA in patients undergoing stand-alone MMAE retained similar associations. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in radiological improvement/clinical outcomes between GA and non-GA for MMAE.