Evidence Hub

Middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma: meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials and review of ongoing trials

Conor S. Gillespie, M. Veremu, W. Cook, M. Ashraf, Keng S. Lee, Y. Chedid, Ali M. Alam, Y. Karepov et al.

Acta Neurochirurgica, 2025

1,432 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization (MMAE) has been proposed as adjunct and stand-alone treatment for Chronic Subdural Hematoma (CSDH). We aimed to meta-analyze three recently published randomized controlled trials, to reliably estimate the effect of MMAE. We also carried out a systematic review of ongoing trials and their key outcomes. A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis was conducted (PROSPERO ID CRD42024618816). Three published RCTs (MAGIC-MT, EMBOLISE, and STEM) assessing MMAE in CSDH were included. Trial primary outcomes were pooled for analysis using random effects models. Primary and secondary outcomes (recurrence/surgical rescue, functional outcome) were obtained, stratified by treatment group (undergoing surgery, and nonsurgical management). A descriptive review of trials in public registries was also conducted (search date 30th November 2024). In total, 1432 patients were included from three trials in meta-analysis. Overall, MMAE reduced symptomatic progression or recurrence, but was not statistically significant (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23–1.06, P = 0.058). For the group undergoing surgery, MMAE was not associated with reduced recurrence (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19–1.88, P = 0.194). For nonsurgical management, MMAE reduced progression (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22–0.60, P < 0.001). MMAE did not influence functional outcome (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97–1.04, P = 0.790). From the literature search, there are twenty-one registered trials. Nineteen studies include arms assessing MMAE as an…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,432 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free