Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validation of the Supplemented Spetzler-Martin Grading System for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in a Multicenter Cohort of 1009 Surgical Patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validation of the Supplemented Spetzler-Martin Grading System for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in a Multicenter Cohort of 1009 Surgical Patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Validation of the Supplemented Spetzler-Martin Grading System for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in a Multicenter Cohort of 1009 Surgical Patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validation of the Supplemented Spetzler-Martin Grading System for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in a Multicenter Cohort of 1009 Surgical Patients
2015
Overview
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,Copyright by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons,Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc
