Endovascular treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: clinical outcomes of patients included in the registry of a pragmatic randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".