Sizdahkhani, Saman

Abstract Introduction The impact of multiple feeding arteries on clinical outcomes of cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) is not well understood. This study aims to compare outcomes between AVMs with multiple versus single feeding arteries. Patients and Methods Data from the Multicenter International Study for Treatment of Brain AVMs (MISTA) consortium were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance cohorts. Subgroup analysis was conducted for ruptured and unruptured AVMs and different treatment options, and multivariable logistic regression was applied to assess the impact of feeding artery origin. Results Among 953 patients, 661(69.4%) had multiple feeding arteries, and 292 (30.6%) had a single feeding artery. After PSM, which included 422 matched patients (211 in each group), the differences in obliteration rates (68.7% vs 74.8%, OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.48–1.12, p = 0.16) and symptomatic complications (15.6% vs 11.8%, OR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.78–2.41, p = 0.25) were not significant. Subgroup analysis comparing ruptured and unruptured AVMs and different treatment options showed no significant differences across all subgroups. Multivariable analysis identified PICA feeders as significantly associated with increased odds of all complications (OR 7.33, 95% CI: 2.14–25.1, p = 0.002). Discussion and Conclusion AVMs with a single feeding artery were more likely to present with rupture, but no significant differences in obliteration rates or complications were observed between the groups after PSM. These findings suggest that while the number of feeding arteries may influence the initial presentation, it does not appear to impact overall treatment success or patient prognosis. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.