From the Department of Neurological Surgery (C.-J.C., J.P.S.), University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Department of Neurosurgery (D.D.), University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY; Department of Radiology (C.P.D.), University of Iowa Carver School of Medicine, Iowa City, IA; Deparment of Neurosurgery (G.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Neurological Surgery (R.M.F.), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Neurology (A.M.S.), University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; and Department of Neurosurgery (M.T.L.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
Neurology. 2020 Nov 17;95(20):917-927. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010968. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
Brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are anomalous direct shunts between cerebral arteries and veins that convalesce into a vascular nidus. The treatment strategies for AVMs are challenging and variable. Intracranial hemorrhage and seizures comprise the most common presentations of AVMs. However, incidental AVMs are being diagnosed with increasing frequency due to widespread use of noninvasive neuroimaging. The balance between the estimated cumulative lifetime hemorrhage risk vs the risk of intervention is often the major determinant for treatment. Current management options include surgical resection, embolization, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and observation. Complete nidal obliteration is the goal of AVM intervention. The risks and benefits of interventions vary and can be used in a combinatorial fashion. Resection of the AVM nidus affords high rates of immediate obliteration, but it is invasive and carries a moderate risk of neurologic morbidity. AVM embolization is minimally invasive, but cure can only be achieved in a minority of lesions. SRS is also minimally invasive and has little immediate morbidity, but AVM obliteration occurs in a delayed fashion, so the patient remains at risk of hemorrhage during the latency period. Whether obliteration can be achieved in unruptured AVMs with a lower risk of stroke or death compared with the natural history of AVMs remains controversial. Over the past 5 years, multicenter prospective and retrospective studies describing AVM natural history and treatment outcomes have been published. This review provides a contemporary and comprehensive discussion of the natural history, pathobiology, and interventions for brain AVMs.
脑动静脉畸形(AVM)是脑动脉和静脉之间异常的直接分流,可恢复为血管巢。AVM 的治疗策略具有挑战性且各不相同。颅内出血和癫痫发作是 AVM 最常见的表现。然而,由于广泛使用非侵入性神经影像学,偶然发现的 AVM 的诊断频率正在增加。估计的终生出血风险与干预风险之间的平衡通常是治疗的主要决定因素。目前的管理选择包括手术切除、栓塞、立体定向放射外科(SRS)和观察。完全消除血管巢是 AVM 干预的目标。干预的风险和益处各不相同,可以组合使用。AVM 巢的切除可实现高即时闭塞率,但它具有侵袭性,且具有中度神经功能障碍风险。AVM 栓塞是微创的,但只有少数病变可以治愈。SRS 也是微创的,即刻发病率低,但 AVM 闭塞发生在延迟阶段,因此患者在潜伏期仍有出血风险。与 AVM 的自然史相比,未破裂的 AVM 是否可以以较低的中风或死亡风险实现闭塞仍存在争议。在过去的 5 年中,描述 AVM 自然史和治疗结果的多中心前瞻性和回顾性研究已经发表。这篇综述提供了关于脑 AVM 的自然史、病理生物学和干预的当代和全面讨论。