Stereotactic radiosurgery with versus without embolization for intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been established as a safe and alternative treatment for dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs). While embolization alone is the most commonly used modality for the treatment of dAVFs, the adjunctive use of embolization with SRS, with the growing use of SRS, has gained increasing interest in the past few years. However, the relative efficacy and safety of SRS combined with embolization versus SRS alone for dAVFs remains uncertain. Hence, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SRS with adjunctive embolization for intracranial dAVFs. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to August 2023. All studies evaluating the utilization of adjunctive embolization and SRS for dAVFs were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was conducted on the suitable outcomes. RESULTS Eighteen studies involving 715 patients were included. The mean age of the participants in the study was 64.30 years in the adjunctive embolization group and 60.51 years in the SRS-alone group. In the adjunctive embolization group 41.3% of patients were female, compared with 47.1% in the SRS-only group. The dAVF obliteration rates were 64.7% and 65.7% in the adjunctive embolization and SRS-alone groups, respectively. These obliteration rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.96), as were the symptom improvement rates (p = 0.35). Adverse events were rare, and were more commonly associated with the adjunctive embolization procedure, although further causal analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS This study provides evidence that adjunctive embolization plus SRS provides similar obliteration and symptom improvement rates compared with SRS alone, with both having very limited SRS-related adverse events. Considering the added burden and adverse events of additional endovascular treatment, the authors recommend embolization be reserved for more complex dAVFs or when embolization can potentially be curative alone or provide more rapid symptomatic relief or protection during the radiosurgical latency period.