Disclosures Surgical Treatment of AVMs Mizuho America, Inc.: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

disclosures
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Disclosures Surgical Treatment of AVMs Mizuho America, Inc.: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Disclosures Surgical Treatment of AVMs Mizuho America, Inc.: Royalties Michael T. Lawton, MD Michael T. Lawton, MD Stryker: Consultant Chief, Vascular Neurosurgery Chief, Vascular Neurosurgery Professor and Vice-Chairman Professor and


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Surgical Treatment of AVMs

Michael T. Lawton, MD

Chief, Vascular Neurosurgery Professor and Vice-Chairman Tong-Po Kan Endowed Chair University of California - San Francisco

Michael T. Lawton, MD

Chief, Vascular Neurosurgery Professor and Vice-Chairman Tong-Po Kan Endowed Chair University of California - San Francisco

Disclosures

  • Mizuho America, Inc.: Royalties
  • Stryker: Consultant

Europe

Current Standards

  • Treat only ruptured AVMs
  • Aggressive embolization
  • Radiosurgery for residual AVM
  • Shrinking role for surgery

America

Current Standards

  • Aggressive surgical resection
  • Embolization as an adjunct
  • Radiosurgery for risky AVMs
  • Stable role for surgery
slide-2
SLIDE 2

AVM Management

  • Divergent management philosophies
  • Competitive, not complementary therapies
  • How to decide?

Onyx embolization Surgery ± embolization Radiosurgery Conservative observation

Onyx AVM Embolization

  • Onyx and slowly staged reflux technique
  • Intranidal injection
  • Cure rates with Onyx are better than with NBCA, still low
  • Cure rates highest with low-grade AVMs
  • Curative attempts associated with ↑complications
  • Aggressive embolization can occlude draining veins
  • Adverse post-embo imaging findings common (40%)

AVM Embolization

Author Year Patients Morbidity Mortality Cure Rate Hemorrhage Perez-Higueras 2005 45 15.5% 2.0% 22% 8.9% Song 2005 50 10.0% 0.0% 20% 6.0% van Rooij 2007 44 4.6% 2.3% 16% 6.8% Weber 2007 93 5.4% 0.0% 20% n/a Mounayer 2007 94 4.3% 3.2% 28% 8.5% Karsaridis 2008 101 8.0% 3.0% 28% 5.9% Pierot 2009 50 8.0% 2.0% 8% 8.0% Panagiotopoulos 2009 82 7.3% 2.4% 20% 12.2% Gao 2009 115 2.6% 0.9% 26% 2.6% Maimon 2010 43 2.3% 0.0% 37% 13.9% Xu 2011 86 3.5% 1.2% 19% 7.0% Saatci 2011 350 4.3% 1.4% 51% 4.0% Abud 2011 17 5.9% 0.0% 94% 11.7% Pierot 2013 127 5.1% 4.3% 24% 8.5% TOTAL 1297 6.2% 1.6% 29% 8.0%

slide-3
SLIDE 3

AVM Radiosurgery

  • Minimally invasive appeal
  • Improved targeting and dosing
  • Low radiation-induced complications, M/M
  • But, intermediate cure rates
  • Latency hemorrhage (2 - 3 years)
  • Embolization decreases radiosurgical obliteration

Radiosurgery for Low-Grade AVMs

Author Year Patients Morbidity Mortality Cure Rate Hemorrhage Pollock 1994 65 5.0% 3.0% 86.0% 7.7% Yamamoto 1996 19 n/a 0.0% 63.2% 2.5% Meder 1997 57 n/a n/a 65.0% n/a Friedman 2003 107 n/a n/a 66.4% 10.4% Nataf 2007 27 n/a 0.0% 77.8% 10.0% Kano 2012 217 3.2% 2.8% 93.0% 6.0% Fokas 2013 24 n/a n/a 61.0% 6.0% Koltz 2013 33 12.1% 0.0% 88.0% 9.1% Sheehan 2014 502 5.6% n/a 76.1% 5.6% Total 1051 6.5% 1.2% 75.2% 7.2%

ARUBA Trial

Critique 1: 13% Randomization Best AVMs excluded (↑rupture risk, ↓tx risk) Worst AVMs included ↓rupture risk, ↑tx risk Low external validity (not generalizable)

ARUBA Primary Outcomes

As randomized As treated

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Critique 2: Treatment Bias

Interventional Therapy Endovascular embolization 30 32% Radiosurgery 31 33% Combined embolization-radiosurgery 15 16% Neurosurgery (± embolization) 17 18%

  • Surgery is the gold-standard
  • No data on cure rate
  • Non-surgical trial with infrequent, delayed cures & ongoing rupture risks

81%

Critique 3: Incomplete Obliteration

Medical Outcome = Natural history Interventional Outcome = Procedural morbidity + Latency hemorrhage As treated

AVM Surgery

  • AVM resection is the “gold standard”
  • Patient selection to ensure low surgical risk

(supplemented Spetzler-Martin grades)

  • Conservative embolization with lower risks
  • Meticulous surgical approaches and technique
  • High cure rates
  • Immediacy (no latency period)

UCSF Microsurgical Experience

  • Review period (years)

16

  • Total AVMs

640

  • Grade I/II AVMs

232 Grade I 76 Grade II 156

  • Mean age (years)

38

  • Hemorrhagic presentation

50%

Low-Grade AVMs

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Low-Grade AVM Surgery

Unruptured Ruptured p-Value Total Total 112 120 232 Angiographic Outcome 0.46 Complete 104 98% 109 97% 213 98% Residual 2 2% 3 3% 5 2% Functional Outcome 0.0008 0-1 91 91% 70 65% 161 78% 2 6 6% 25 23% 31 15% 3 3 3% 5 5% 8 4% 4 0% 2 2% 2 1% 5 0% 4 4% 4 2% 6 0% 1 1% 1 0% Improved/Unchanged 96 96% 105 98% <0.0001 201 97% Worse 4 4% 2 2% 6 3% Mean Follow-up (years) 1.8 1.6 1.7

UCSF ARUBA Patients

  • Screened

473

  • Eligible

87

  • Enrolled

4

  • Excluded (<30d followup)

10

  • Analyzed

74

UCSF ARUBA Patients

  • Treatment

61 Surgery 20 Embolization/Surgery 23 Radiosurgery 15

  • Primary Outcome

10 Observation 1 (8%) Surgery 5 (11%) Radiosurgery 4 (27%)

Low-Grade AVM Surgery

Author Year Patients Morbidity Mortality Cure Rate Hemorrhage Spetzler, Martin 1986 44 2.3% 0% n/a n/a Sundt 1989 84 2.2% 0% 100% 0% Heros 1990 47 2.2% 2.2% 100% 0% Sisti, Stein 1993 67 1.5% 0% 94% 0% Hamilton, Spetzler 1994 40 0.0% 0% 100% n/a Schaller, Schramm 1997 50 3.2% 0% 98% 2% Schaller, Schramm 1998 81 0.0% 0% n/a n/a Harbaugh 1998 26 3.8% 0% 100% 0% Hartmann 2000 48 6.6% 0% n/a n/a Morgan 2004 220 0.9% 0.5% 100% 0% Davidson, Morgan 2010 296 0.7% 0% 97% n/a Lawton 2014 232 2.4% 0.5% 98% 0% Total 1235 2.2% 0.3% 98.5% 0.3%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Critique 5: Study Duration

  • 33 months mean follow-up
  • Surgical patients cured, no further risk (plateau)
  • Medical patients remain at risk (slope)

10 years

Summary: Low-Grade AVMs

Therapy Patients Morbidity Mortality Cure Rate Hemorrhage Embolization 1297 6.2% 1.6% 29.0% 8.0% Radiosurgery 1051 6.5% 1.2% 75.2% 7.2% Surgery 1235 2.2% 0.3% 98.5% 0.3% All AVMs* Patients Complications Case Fatality Obliteration Hemorrhage F/U (pers yrs) Embolization 1019 6.60% 0.96 13% 1.7 137 Radiosurgery 9436 5.10% 0.5 38% 1.7 202 Surgery 2549 7.40% 1.1 96% 0.18 72

* Systematic meta-analysis of 13,698 patients (van Beijnum et al, JAMA 2011)

BARBADOS Trial

  • Beyond ARUBA:
  • Randomized
  • Best neurosurgeons
  • AVMs unruptured
  • Don’t embolize
  • Only low-grades
  • Surgical cure

Beginning soon!

UCSF Experience

  • Consecutive series, single surgeon
  • Review period (years)

16

  • Total Brain AVMs

642

  • Patients

640

slide-7
SLIDE 7

AVM Resection

Military Battle Surgical Resection

  • War

Resection

  • Soldier

Neurosurgeon

  • Battlefield

Anatomy

  • Battle plan

Surgical steps

  • Enemy

AVM subtypes

  • Frontal
  • Temporal
  • Parieto-Occipital
  • Ventricular
  • Deep
  • Brainstem
  • Cerebellar

AVM Subtypes (32)

  • Lateral Frontal
  • Medial Frontal
  • Paramedian Frontal
  • Basal Frontal
  • Sylvian Frontal
  • Lateral Temporal
  • Basal Temporal
  • Sylvian Temporal
  • Medial Temporal
  • Lateral Parieto-Occipital
  • Medial Parieto-Occipital
  • Paramedian Parieto-Occipital
  • Basal Parieto-Occipital
  • Callosal
  • Ventricular Body
  • Atrial
  • Temporal Horn
  • Pure Sylvian
  • Insular
  • Basal Ganglia
  • Thalamus
  • Suboccipital Cerebellar
  • Vermian Cerebellar
  • Tonsillar Cerebellar
  • Tentorial Cerebellar
  • Petrosal Cerebellar
  • Anterior Midbrain
  • Posterior Midbrain
  • Anterior Pontine
  • Lateral Pontine
  • Anterior Medullary
  • Lateral Medullary

Frontal AVMs

Lateral Medial Paramedian Basal Sylvian

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Temporal AVMs

Lateral Medial Basal Sylvian

Parieto-Occipital AVMs

Lateral Medial Paramedian Basal

Ventricular AVMs

Callosal Ventricular Body Atrial Temporal Horn

Deep AVMs

Sylvian Insular Basal Ganglial Basal Ganglial Thalamic Thalamic

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Brainstem AVMs

Anterior Midbrain Posterior Midbrain Anterior Pontine Lateral Pontine Anterior Medullary Lateral Medullary

Cerebellar AVMs

Suboccipital Tonsillar Tentorial Vermian Petrosal

Steps for AVM Resection

1. Exposure 2. Subarachnoid dissection 3. Draining vein 4. Feeding arteries 5. Pial dissection 6. Parenchymal dissection 7. Ependymal dissection 8. AVM Resection

  • 1. Exposure
slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 2. Subarachnoid Dissection

Absolute preservation Compass Odometer

  • 3. Draining Vein
  • 4. Feeding Arteries
  • 5. Pial Dissection

Fronts

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • 6. Parenchymal Dissection
  • 6. Parenchymal Dissection

Compact Diffuse

  • 7. Ependymal Dissection
  • 8. Resection
slide-12
SLIDE 12

The Battle Plans Lateral Frontal AVM Lateral Frontal AVM AVM Surgery

  • Each AVM is not unique
  • Recognize types and subtypes
  • Choose your battles and patients wisely
  • Study angiographic, radiographic anatomy
  • Know the basic 8 steps strategy for resection
  • Execute the specific battle plan for each AVM
  • Be courageous
  • Strive for excellence (ARUBA)
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Surgical Courage

  • More than technical steps
  • One mistake away from disaster
  • High risk
  • Must handle the danger and intensity

“It’s not what we have in our hands, but how we use it”

ARUBA Aftermath

  • Ruptured AVMs should be managed surgically
  • Unruptured AVMs:

Low-grade AVMs → BARBADOS Silent microhemorrhage High-risk AVMs (morphology, genetics, etc.) Downgraded high-grade AVMs after VS-SRS

  • The AVM’s “sentinel hemorrhage”

Aneurysm: symptoms with blood AVM: sz or no symptoms with blood

  • “Unruptured” AVMs have silent

intralesional hemorrhage

  • SIM seen histopathologically

(hemosiderin, macrophages)

  • SIM seen radiographically

(EOOH, evidence of old hemorrhage)

Silent Microhemorrhage Evidence of Old Hemorrhage

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Silent Microhemorrhage

Evidence of old hemorrhage 7% Index ICH, OR = 4.0 New ICH, OR = 3.5

No EOOH EOOH

“Unruptured” AVMs with silent microhemorrhage have increased natural history risk

Hemorrhage-free Survival

Silent Microhemorrhage

Will increase surgical indications for unruptured AVMs

Conclusions

  • Surgery for unruptured AVMs is now considered risky
  • Like ISAT for aneurysms, ARUBA will require a response (BARBADOS)
  • Surgical indications remain strong for low-grade AVMs, those with silent

microhemorrhage, and some downgraded AVMs

  • Embolization as preoperative adjunct (not cure)
  • Radiosurgery for deep or high-risk AVMs
  • Need to maintain surgical excellence through careful selection, meticulous

technique, and precise strategy

  • Surgery should be considered the “gold standard”

UCSF AVM Study Project

Neurological Surgery Michael Lawton, MD Michael McDermott, MD Lisa Hannegan, CNS April Sabangan, RN Neurovascular Neurology Wade Smith, MD, PhD

  • S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD

Nerissa Ko, MD Andrew Josephson, MD Interventional Neuroradiology Van Halbach, MD Randall Higashida, MD Christopher Dowd, MD Center for Cerebrovascular Research William Young, MD Helen Kim, PhD Hua Su, PhD Ludmila Pawlikowska, PhD Tomoki Hashimoto, MD, PhD David Saloner, MD Etc., etc. Department of Pathology Tarik Tirhan, MD, PhD Andrew Bollen, MD, PhD

http://avm.ucsf.edu