• Neurosurgery · Jan 2015

    Multicenter Study

    Validation of the supplemented Spetzler-Martin grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations in a multicenter cohort of 1009 surgical patients.

    • Helen Kim, Adib A Abla, Jeffrey Nelson, Charles E McCulloch, David Bervini, Michael K Morgan, Christopher Stapleton, Brian P Walcott, Christopher S Ogilvy, Robert F Spetzler, and Michael T Lawton.
    • *Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, ‡Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, §Center for Cerebrovascular Research, and ¶Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California; ‖Department of Neurological Surgery, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; #Department of Neurological Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; **Division of Neurological Surgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.
    • Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan 1; 76 (1): 25-31; discussion 31-2; quiz 32-3.

    BackgroundThe supplementary grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) was introduced in 2010 as a tool for improving preoperative risk prediction and selecting surgical patients.ObjectiveTo demonstrate in this multicenter validation study that supplemented Spetzler-Martin (SM-Supp) grades have greater predictive accuracy than Spetzler-Martin (SM) grades alone.MethodsData collected from 1009 AVM patients who underwent AVM resection were used to compare the predictive powers of SM and SM-Supp grades. Patients included the original 300 University of California, San Francisco patients plus those treated thereafter (n = 117) and an additional 592 patients from 3 other centers.ResultsIn the combined cohort, the SM-Supp system performed better than SM system alone: area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC) = 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78) for SM-Supp and AUROC = 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.73) for SM (P < .001). Stratified analysis fitting models within 3 different follow-up groupings (<6 months, 6 months-2 years, and >2 years) demonstrated that the SM-Supp system performed better than SM system for both medium (AUROC = 0.71 vs 0.62; P = .003) and long (AUROC = 0.69 vs 0.58; P = .001) follow-up. Patients with SM-Supp grades ≤6 had acceptably low surgical risks (0%-24%), with a significant increase in risk for grades >6 (39%-63%).ConclusionThis study validates the predictive accuracy of the SM-Supp system in a multicenter cohort. An SM-Supp grade of 6 is a cutoff or boundary for AVM operability. Supplemented grading is currently the best method of estimating neurological outcomes after AVM surgery, and we recommend it as a starting point in the evaluation of AVM operability.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…