PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Stroke0 citations

Abstract TP285: Adjunctive Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization in Symptomatic Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

View Full Paper
NNNhan NguyenHTHa Le Duc ThienVHVictoria Ho

Key Points

  • Evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive middle meningeal artery embolization in managing chronic subdural hematoma.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MMA embolization.
  • Searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant studies.
  • Compared outcomes of MMA embolization plus standard care versus standard care alone in symptomatic CSDH.
  • Assessed short-term mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs) within 90 days.
  • Included four RCTs with 1,774 patients, where 877 received MMA embolization.
  • No significant difference in mortality (risk ratio 0.89) or SAEs (risk ratio 0.83) within 90 days.
  • MMA embolization significantly reduced risk of hematoma recurrence/progression (risk ratio 0.55).
  • Heterogeneity among studies was minimal to moderate.

Abstract

Background: Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of adjunctive middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization in reducing the risk of recurrence or progression of hematoma in patients with subacute or chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical utility of adjunctive MMA embolization in the management of CSDH. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing adjunctive MMA embolization plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with symptomatic CSDH. The primary composite outcome was hematoma recurrence, progression, or persistence. Secondary outcomes included short-term mortality (within 90 days) and serious adverse events (SAEs) within 3 months. A random-effects model was used for outcomes with significant heterogeneity, assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: Four RCTs comprising 1,774 patients were included, of whom 877 received adjunctive MMA embolization. Within 90 days, there were no statistically significant differences in mortality (risk ratio RR 0.89; 95% confidence interval CI 0.41–1.95; p is equal to 0.77; I 2 is equal to 29%) or serious adverse events (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.58–1.19; p is equal to 0.31; I 2 is equal to 52%). However, adjunctive MMA embolization was associated with a significantly lower risk of hematoma recurrence or progression compared to standard care (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40–0.74; p is less than 0.0001; I 2 is equal to 26%). Heterogeneity ranged from minimal to moderate across analyses. Conclusion: Adjunctive MMA embolization did not significantly reduce short-term mortality or serious adverse events compared to standard care in patients with CSDH. However, it was associated with a substantially lower risk of hematoma recurrence or progression. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term benefits and safety of this intervention. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity among studies.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980fc73c1c9540dea80e43ahttps://doi.org/10.1161/str.57.suppl_1.tp285
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper