PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 14, 2024Journal of Neurotrauma5 citations

The Influence of Coagulopathy on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization as Standalone Treatment for Non-acute Subdural Hematomas

View Full Paper
WSWalid K. SalahMFMatthew C. FindlayCBCordell M. Baker

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is emerging as a safe and effective standalone intervention for non-acute subdural hematomas (NASHs); however, the risk of hematoma recurrence after MMAE in coagulopathic patients is unclear. To characterize the impact of coagulopathy on treatment outcomes, we analyzed a multi-institutional database of patients who underwent standalone MMAE as treatment for NASH. We classified 537 patients who underwent MMAE as a standalone intervention between 2019 and 2023 by coagulopathy status. Coagulopathy was defined as use of anticoagulation/antiplatelet agents or pre-operative thrombocytopenia (platelets <100,000/μL). Demographics, pre-procedural characteristics, in-hospital course, and patient outcomes were collected. Thrombocytopenia, aspirin use, antiplatelet agent use, and anticoagulant use were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses to identify any characteristics associated with the need for rescue surgical intervention, mortality, adverse events, and modified Rankin Scale score at 90-day follow-up. Propensity score-matched cohorts by coagulopathy status with matching covariates adjusting for risk factors implicated in surgical recurrence were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Minimal differences in pre-operative characteristics between patients with and those without coagulopathy were observed. On unmatched and matched analyses, patients with coagulopathy had higher rates of requiring subsequent surgery than those without (unmatched: 9.9% vs. 4.3%; matched: 12.6% vs. 4.6%; both

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Salah et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e73ff3b6db6435876b9d5ahttps://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2023.0413
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper