Comparative effectiveness of treatments for cerebral arteriovenous malformations: trends in nationwide outcomes from 2000 to 2009

Abstract

Object: The development of multimodality approaches for the treatment of cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), including microsurgery, endovascular therapy, and radiosurgery, has shifted modern treatment paradigms in the last 10 years. This study examines these changes in detail from a nationwide perspective.

Methods: The authors examined data from 2001 to 2009 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, and they assessed the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness, including the total number of discharges, discharge proportion, length of stay, and hospital charges. The authors also examined patient demographics (including age, sex, income level, and insurance), hemorrhage status at presentation, and trends in open surgical and endovascular treatment.

Results: A total of 33,997 inpatient admissions for patients with a primary diagnosis of intracranial AVM were identified, with a mean of 4191 patients admitted annually. The mean hospital charges increased 2-fold over the study period without significant differences in outcomes. There were substantial differences between surgical, endovascular, radiosurgical, and multimodality treatments. The proportion of AVMs treated microsurgically remained stable over this period, while the proportion treated endovascularly dramatically increased in size, and the data demonstrate important patient-level distinctions among groups. Outcomes and complication profiles were significantly different between treatment modalities and were impacted by age and hemorrhage status.

Conclusions: Charges associated with treatment of cerebral AVMs to the payer and society have increased dramatically over the first decade of the 21st century without clear improvements in quality parameters. However, analysis of the 3 primary treatment modalities has demonstrated differences and warrants further investigation to understand which patient population would benefit maximally from each. Unfortunately, with only imprecise measurements of quality in health care delivery, it remains imperative to develop national databases in which parameters, such as survival, functional outcomes, quality of life, and complication rates, can be assessed to examine the value of care delivered in a more meaningful way. Demonstrating an ever-increasing value of delivered health care will be imperative in our evolving health care system.