Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“This is the first ever randomized controlled trial of any intervention for brain AVMs, and as such it is hugely welcome. However, the result still leaves us uncertain what to do for the best in the long term because the trial was stopped after a mere 33 months. Patients with AVMs are young or middle-aged and need to know how things will go over 33 years!”
“The average follow-up in ARUBA was 33 months which is inherently biased towards medical management because the risk of hemorrhage and disability with unruptured bAVMs may be relatively low, but lifelong, and thus, the benefit of interventional therapy would be realized over a longer term.”
“The risk of death and symptomatic stroke is almost four times lower in patients managed without interventional therapy. Also, after 3 years the risk of death and neurological disability is three times lower for patients managed without intervention.”
Supports conservative care for unruptured AVMs; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background The clinical benefit of preventive eradication of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations remains uncertain. A Randomised trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA) aims to compare the risk of death and symptomatic stroke in patients with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation who are allocated to either medical management alone or medical management with interventional therapy. Methods Adult patients (≥18 years) with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation were enrolled into this trial at 39 clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomised (by web-based system, in a 1:1 ratio, with random permuted block design [block size 2, 4, or 6], stratified by clinical site) to medical management with interventional therapy (ie, neurosurgery, embolisation, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination) or medical management alone (ie, pharmacological therapy for neurological symptoms as needed). Patients, clinicians, and investigators are aware of treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time to the composite endpoint of death or symptomatic stroke; the primary analysis is by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389181. Findings Randomisation was started on April 4, 2007, and was stopped on April 15, 2013, when a data and safety monitoring board appointed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health recommended halting randomisation because of superiority of the medical management group (log-rank Z statistic of 4·10, exceeding the prespecified stopping boundary value of 2·87). At this point, outcome data were available for 223 patients (mean follow-up 33·3 months [SD 19·7]), 114 assigned to interventional therapy and 109 to medical management. The primary endpoint had been reached by 11 (10·1%) patients in the medical management group compared with 35 (30·7%) in the interventional therapy group. The risk of death or stroke was significantly lower in the medical management group than in the interventional therapy group (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·14–0·54). No harms were identified, other than a higher number of strokes (45 vs 12, p<0·0001) and neurological deficits unrelated to stroke (14 vs 1, p=0·0008) in patients allocated to interventional therapy compared with medical management. Interpretation The ARUBA trial showed that medical management alone is superior to medical management with interventional therapy for the prevention of death or stroke in patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations followed up for 33 months. The trial is continuing its observational phase to establish whether the disparities will persist over an additional 5 years of follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohr et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: