PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 23, 2025The Neuroradiology Journal2 citationsOpen Access

Middle meningeal artery embolization versus standard of care for chronic subdural hematoma: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

View Full Paper
AMAli MortezaeiNANadir Al-SaidiKYKiana Yahyaei

Key Points

  • MMAE significantly reduced the recurrence rate by 45% in patients with chronic subdural hematoma.
  • The meta-analysis included data from multiple randomized controlled trials, reinforcing the result's reliability.
  • Subgroup analyses confirmed the benefit of MMAE, particularly for those receiving additional surgical intervention.
  • Implications suggest that MMAE could be a safer, more effective treatment option for chronic subdural hematoma.

Abstract

Background The safety and efficacy of the middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) in patients with non-acute or chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) has significant reporting within recent literature, however, mainly in the form of observational data. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared MMAE in addition to standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone for cSDH. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs), mortality rate, independent ambulation (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0 – 3), and changes in hematoma characteristics at 90 days. The fixed-effect or random-effects model was used based on the significancy of the heterogenicity (I 2 > 50%, P < .1). Results Findings showed significant superiority of MMAE over SOC in 90-day recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.36 – 0.83, P = .0047, I 2 = 43.3%), reoperation within 180 days (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.26–0.56, P < .001, I 2 = 0.0%), ambulatory functional outcome (RR = 1.034, 95% CI = 1.0–1.07, P = .0296, I 2 = 53.9%), SAE at any time (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.38–0.94, P = .025, , I 2 = 0.0%), and 90-day any-cause mortality (RR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.14–0.6, P = .0008, I 2 = 0.0%). Successful embolization and 30-day embolization-related complications occurred in 99.2% (95% CI = 94.54% – 100%) and 1.18% (95% CI = 0.39% – 2.31%) of patients, respectively. Additionally, subgroup analyses on major and pilot RCTs, comparison of embolic agents, and MMAE adjuvant to surgery versus surgery alone confirmed these findings. Conclusion MMAE appears to be safe and effective in the management of cSDH with low recurrence and SAE rate.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mortezaei et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68f9bad6d7353cfcfc68f412https://doi.org/10.1177/19714009251389579
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Adjunctive role of middle meningeal artery embolization in patients with surgical treatment of unilateral chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials2025 · 2 citations
  2. 2Analysis of middle meningeal artery embolization for the treatment of chronic, acute on chronic, and subacute subdural hematomas2024 · 3 citations
  3. 3Abstract 495: Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.2025
  4. 4Abstract TP285: Adjunctive Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization in Symptomatic Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials2026
  5. 5Standalone middle meningeal artery embolization vs. surgical evacuation in chronic subdural hematoma: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis2026 · 3 citations