Alaraj, Ali

Background and Purpose: Dural arteriovenous fistulae can present with hemorrhage, but there remains a paucity of data regarding subsequent outcomes. We sought to use the CONDOR (Consortium for Dural Arteriovenous Fistula Outcomes Research), a multi-institutional registry, to characterize the morbidity and mortality of dural arteriovenous fistula–related hemorrhage. Methods: A retrospective review of patients in CONDOR who presented with dural arteriovenous fistula–related hemorrhage was performed. Patient characteristics, clinical follow-up, and radiographic details were analyzed for associations with poor outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale score ≥3). Results: The CONDOR dataset yielded 262 patients with incident hemorrhage, with median follow-up of 1.4 years. Poor outcome was observed in 17.0% (95% CI, 12.3%–21.7%) at follow-up, including a 3.6% (95% CI, 1.3%–6.0%) mortality. Age and anticoagulant use were associated with poor outcome on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.04, odds ratio, 5.1 respectively). Subtype of hemorrhage and venous shunting pattern of the lesion did not affect outcome significantly. Conclusions: Within the CONDOR registry, dural arteriovenous fistula–related hemorrhage was associated with a relatively lower morbidity and mortality than published outcomes from other arterialized cerebrovascular lesions but still at clinically consequential rates.

Background and Purpose: Given the benign natural history of intracranial low-grade dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs), their routine treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of low-grade dAVF treatment to conservative management. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of dAVF patients derived from 12 institutions participating in the Consortium for Dural Arteriovenous Fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR). Patients with low-grade (Borden I) dAVFs were included and categorized into treatment and observation cohorts. Primary outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes were rates of excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) functional outcomes, symptomatic improvement, mortality, and obliteration at final follow-up. Results: The treatment and observation cohorts comprised 230 and 112 patients, respectively. At last follow up, no difference in primary or secondary outcomes was observed between the two cohorts, with the exception of obliteration, which was higher in the treatment cohort (79.3% vs. 28.2%, p<0.001; Table 1). The two cohorts were then matched in a 1:1 ratio, resulting in 64 patients in each matched cohort. No difference in primary or secondary outcomes was observed between the matched cohorts, with the exception of obliteration, which was higher in the matched treatment cohort (75.4% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001; Table 2). Subgroup analysis of symptomatic patients demonstrated higher obliteration rate in the treatment cohort, but no difference in primary or other secondary outcomes were found. Conclusions: Low-grade dAVF treatment was not associated with increased functional disability compared to conservative management. Although higher obliteration rates were achieved in the treatment cohort, rates of symptomatic improvement were similar between the two cohorts. This study did not provide evidence to support the routine treatment of low-grade dAVFs.

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVF) have a benign natural history in the majority of cases. The benefit from treatment of these lesions is controversial. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of observation versus intervention for low-grade dAVFs. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed dAVF patients from institutions participating in the CONsortium for Dural arteriovenous fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR). Patients with low-grade (Borden type I) dAVFs were included and categorized into intervention or observation cohorts. The intervention and observation cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes were excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) outcomes, symptomatic improvement, mortality, and obliteration at final follow-up. RESULTS The intervention and observation cohorts comprised 230 and 125 patients, respectively. We found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 unmatched cohorts at last follow-up (mean duration 36 mo), except obliteration rate was higher in the intervention cohort (78.5% vs 24.1%, P < .001). The matched intervention and observation cohorts each comprised 78 patients. We also found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the matched cohorts except obliteration was also more likely in the matched intervention cohort ( P < .001). Procedural complication rates in the unmatched and matched intervention cohorts were 15.4% and 19.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION Intervention for low-grade intracranial dAVFs achieves superior obliteration rates compared to conservative management, but it fails to improve neurological or functional outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine treatment of low-grade dAVFs.