Primary Embolization of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations With Intention to Cure: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) involves multiple approaches, including embolization, microsurgical resection, and radiosurgery. With the advent of new embolisates, dual-lumen balloon catheters, detachable tip microcatheters, and transvenous embolization, endovascular AVM obliteration has become more effective. Although adjuvant embolization and embolization are commonly used, the safety and effectiveness of curative embolization remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with AVMs who underwent primary embolization with the intention to cure. We collected data on patient characteristics, AVM features, complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 25 studies with a total of 1425 patients with 1427 AVMs who underwent curative embolization. Of these patients, 70% were low grade (pooled = 61% [39-82]), 67% were <3 cm (pooled = 78% [60-92]), and 75% were in superficial locations (pooled = 80% [72-86]). At last radiographic follow-up (mean, 16.7 ± 10.9 months), the full obliteration rate was 52% (pooled = 61% [43-77]) and retreatment rate was 25% (pooled = 17% [8.3-27]). At last clinical follow-up (mean, 24.2 ± 13.3 months), the poor clinical outcome rate was 7.9% (pooled = 4.4% [1.3-8.7]) and symptomatic complication rate was 13% (pooled = 13% [8-19]). There was no significant difference in the rate of radiographic cure, need for retreatment, and poor outcomes between ruptured and unruptured AVMs. Symptomatic complications were more common in the treatment of unruptured AVMs. The primary outcomes showed high heterogeneity (I 2 = 72%-94%). CONCLUSION: Curative embolization of AVM is primarily reserved for small and low-grade AVMs, with highly variable outcomes. Our findings suggest poor radiographic outcomes and increased risk of complications. Outcomes are highly dependent on patient selection and technique used. Large multicenter prospective studies are required to further guide patient selection, categorize clinical and radiographic outcomes, and identify subgroup of patients that may benefit from curative embolization.