BACKGROUND: The supplementary grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) was introduced in 2010 as a tool for improving preoperative risk prediction and selecting surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate in this multicenter validation study that supplemented Spetzler-Martin (SM-Supp) grades have greater predictive accuracy than Spetzler-Martin (SM) grades alone. METHODS: Data 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. RESULTS: In 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%). CONCLUSION: This 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.
BACKGROUND: The supplementary grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) was introduced in 2010 as a tool for improving preoperative risk prediction and selecting surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate in this multicenter validation study that supplemented Spetzler-Martin (SM-Supp) grades have greater predictive accuracy than Spetzler-Martin (SM) grades alone. METHODS: Data 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. RESULTS: In 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%). CONCLUSION: This 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.
Authors: R P Atkinson; I A Awad; H H Batjer; C F Dowd; A Furlan; S L Giannotta; C R Gomez; D Gress; G Hademenos; V Halbach; J C Hemphill; R T Higashida; L N Hopkins; M B Horowitz; S C Johnston; M W Lawton; M W McDermott; A M Malek; J P Mohr; A I Qureshi; H Riina; W S Smith; J Pile-Spellman; R F Spetzler; T A Tomsick; W L Young Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Julian Spears; Karel G Terbrugge; Mona Moosavian; Walter Montanera; Robert A Willinsky; M Christopher Wallace; Michael Tymianski Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N Tamaki; K Ehara; T K Lin; K Kuwamura; Y Obora; Y Kanazawa; H Yamashita; S Matsumoto Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 1991-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Christoph J Griessenauer; Joseph H Miller; Bonita S Agee; Winfield S Fisher; Joel K Curé; Philip R Chapman; Paul M Foreman; Wilson A M Fisher; Adam C Witcher; Beverly C Walters Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Peyton L Nisson; Salman A Fard; Christina M Walter; Cameron M Johnstone; Michael A Mooney; Ali Tayebi Meybodi; Michael Lang; Helen Kim; Heidi Jahnke; Denise J Roe; Travis M Dumont; G Michael Lemole; Robert F Spetzler; Michael T Lawton Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Ali Tayebi Meybodi; Helen Kim; Jeffrey Nelson; Steven W Hetts; Timo Krings; Karel G terBrugge; Marie E Faughnan; Michael T Lawton Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Eric Karl Oermann; Alex Rubinsteyn; Dale Ding; Justin Mascitelli; Robert M Starke; Joshua B Bederson; Hideyuki Kano; L Dade Lunsford; Jason P Sheehan; Jeffrey Hammerbacher; Douglas Kondziolka Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.379