Intermediate-grade brain arteriovenous malformations and the boundary of operability using the supplemented Spetzler-Martin grading system

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona and
  • | 2 Center for Cerebrovascular Research Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Supplemented Spetzler-Martin grading (Supp-SM), which is the combination of Spetzler-Martin and Lawton-Young grades, was validated as being more accurate than stand-alone Spetzler-Martin grading, but an operability cutoff was not established. In this study, the authors surgically treated intermediate-grade AVMs to provide prognostic factors for neurological outcomes and to define AVMs at the boundary of operability.

METHODS

Surgically treated Supp-SM intermediate-grade (5, 6, and 7) AVMs were analyzed from 2011 to 2018 at two medical centers. Worsened neurological outcomes were defined as increased modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores on postoperative examinations. A second analysis of 2000–2011 data for Supp-SM grade 6 and 7 AVMs was performed to determine the subtypes with improved or unchanged outcomes. Patients were separated into three groups based on nidus size (S1: < 3 cm, S2: 3–6 cm, S3: > 6 cm) and age (A1: < 20 years, A2: 20–40 years, A3: > 40 years), followed by any combination of the combined supplemented grade: low risk (S1A1, S1A2, S2A1), intermediate risk (S2A2, S1A3, S3A1, or high risk (S3A3, S3A2, S2A3).

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-six patients had intermediate Supp-SM grade AVMs. Of these patients, 102 had Supp-SM grade 5 (41.5%), 99 had Supp-SM grade 6 (40.2%), and 45 had Supp-SM grade 7 (18.3%). Significant differences in the proportions of patients with worse mRS scores at follow-up were found between the groups, with 24.5% (25/102) of patients in Supp-SM grade 5, 29.3% (29/99) in Supp-SM grade 6, and 57.8% (26/45) in Supp-SM grade 7 (p < 0.001). Patients with Supp-SM grade 7 AVMs had significantly increased odds of worse postoperative mRS scores (p < 0.001; OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.9–7.3). In the expanded cohort of 349 Supp-SM grade 6 AVM patients, a significantly higher proportion of older patients with larger Supp-SM grade 6 AVMs (grade 6+, 38.6%) had neurological deterioration than the others with Supp-SM grade 6 AVMs (22.9%, p = 0.02). Conversely, in an expanded cohort of 197 Supp-SM grade 7 AVM patients, a significantly lower proportion of younger patients with smaller Supp-SM grade 7 AVMs (grade 7–, 19%) had neurological deterioration than the others with Supp-SM grade 7 AVMs (44.9%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with Supp-SM grade 7 AVMs are at increased risk of worse postoperative neurological outcomes, making Supp-SM grade 6 an appropriate operability cutoff. However, young patients with small niduses in the low-risk Supp-SM grade 7 group (grade 7−) have favorable postoperative outcomes. Outcomes in Supp-SM grade 7 patients did not improve with surgeon experience, indicating that the operability boundary is a hard limit reflecting the complexity of high-grade AVMs.

ABBREVIATIONS

AVM = arteriovenous malformation; mRS = modified Rankin Scale; Supp-SM = supplemented Spetzler-Martin; VS-SRS = volume-staged stereotactic radiosurgery.

Supplementary Materials

    • Tables S1-S2 and Figures S1-S2 (PDF 14,167 KB)

Illustration from Schneider et al. (pp 205–214). Copyright Elyssa Siegel. Published with permission.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Nisson PL, Fard SA, Walter CM, et al. A novel proposed grading system for cerebellar arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 2020;132(4):11051115.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Morgan MK, Davidson AS, Assaad NNA, Stoodley MA. Critical review of brain AVM surgery, surgical results and natural history in 2017. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159(8):14571478.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Lawton MT, Kim H, McCulloch CE, et al. A supplementary grading scale for selecting patients with brain arteriovenous malformations for surgery. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(4):702713.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Hafez A, Koroknay-Pál P, Oulasvirta E, et al. The application of the novel grading scale (Lawton-Young Grading System) to predict the outcome of brain arteriovenous malformation. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(2):529536.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Kim H, Abla AA, Nelson J, et al. Validation of the supplemented Spetzler-Martin grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations in a multicenter cohort of 1009 surgical patients. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(1):2533.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Abla AA, Rutledge WC, Seymour ZA, et al. A treatment paradigm for high-grade brain arteriovenous malformations: volume-staged radiosurgical downgrading followed by microsurgical resection. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(2):419432.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Wong J, Slomovic A, Ibrahim G, et al. Microsurgery for ARUBA trial (A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformation)–eligible unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations. Stroke. 2017;48(1):136144.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Tonetti DA, Gross BA, Atcheson KM, et al. The benefit of radiosurgery for ARUBA-eligible arteriovenous malformations: a practical analysis over an appropriate follow-up period. J Neurosurg. 2018;128(6):18501854.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Singfer U, Hemelsoet D, Vanlangenhove P, et al. Unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations: primary ONYX embolization in ARUBA (A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations)–eligible patients. Stroke. 2017;48(12):33933396.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Schramm J, Schaller K, Esche J, Boström A. Microsurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations: subgroup outcomes in a consecutive series of 288 cases. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(4):10561063.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Rutledge WC, Ko NU, Lawton MT, Kim H. Hemorrhage rates and risk factors in the natural history course of brain arteriovenous malformations. Transl Stroke Res. 2014;5(5):538542.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Rutledge WC, Abla AA, Nelson J, et al. Treatment and outcomes of ARUBA-eligible patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations at a single institution. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(3):E8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Pollock BE. Arteriovenous malformations and radiosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(2):532534.

  • 14

    Nerva JD, Mantovani A, Barber J, et al. Treatment outcomes of unruptured arteriovenous malformations with a subgroup analysis of ARUBA (A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations)–eligible patients. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(5):563.570.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mohr JP, Parides MK, Stapf C, et al. Medical management with or without interventional therapy for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9917):614621.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Mohr JP, Overbey JR, Hartmann A, et al. Medical management with interventional therapy versus medical management alone for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): final follow-up of a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(7):573581.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Mohr JP, Moskowitz AJ, Stapf C, et al. The ARUBA trial: current status, future hopes. Stroke. 2010;41(8):e537e540.

  • 18

    Mohr JP. Results of ARUBA are applicable to most patients with nonruptured arteriovenous malformations. Stroke. 2014;45(5):15411542.

  • 19

    Mohr JP. A randomized trial of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA). Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2008;103:34.

  • 20

    Lang M, Moore NZ, Rasmussen PA, Bain MD. Treatment outcomes of A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformation–eligible unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation patients. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(3):548555.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Karlsson B, Johansson AV, Yang HC, et al. A novel method to determine the natural course of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations without the need for follow-up information. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(suppl 1):1016.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Javadpour M, Al-Mahfoudh R, Mitchell PS, Kirollos R. Outcome of microsurgical excision of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations in ARUBA-eligible patients. Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30(6):619622.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Feghali J, Huang J. Updates in arteriovenous malformation management: the post-ARUBA era. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2019;5(1):3439.

  • 24

    Feghali J, Huang J. “ARUBA” aftermath: subsequent studies and current management of unruptured arteriovenous malformations. World Neurosurg. 2019;128:374375.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Ding D, Starke RM, Kano H, et al. Radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations in A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (ARUBA)–eligible patients: a multicenter study. Stroke. 2016;47(2):342349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Can A, Gross BA, Du R. The natural history of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Handb Clin Neurol. 2017;143:1524.

  • 27

    Lawton MT, Rutledge WC, Kim H, et al. Brain arteriovenous malformations. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15008.

  • 28

    Starke RM, Yen CP, Ding D, Sheehan JP. A practical grading scale for predicting outcome after radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations: analysis of 1012 treated patients. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(4):981987.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Spetzler RF, Ponce FA. A 3-tier classification of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(3):842849.

  • 30

    Spetzler RF, Martin NA. A proposed grading system for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 1986;65(4):476483.

  • 31

    Ding D, Yen CP, Starke RM, et al. Outcomes following single-session radiosurgery for high-grade intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28(5):666674.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Ding D, Ilyas A, Sheehan JP. Contemporary management of high-grade brain arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery. 2018;65(CN Suppl 1):2433.

  • 33

    Lawton MT. Spetzler-Martin Grade III arteriovenous malformations: surgical results and a modification of the grading scale. Neurosurgery. 2003;52(4):740749.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Davies JM, Ozpinar A, Lawton MT. Volume-outcome relationships in neurosurgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2015;26(2):207218, viii.

  • 35

    Davies JM, Lawton MT. Improved outcomes for patients with cerebrovascular malformations at high-volume centers: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume in the United States, 2000–2009. J Neurosurg. 2017;127(1):6980.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 116 116 116
Full Text Views 81 81 81
PDF Downloads 125 125 125
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0