Neurosurgery notes/EMBOLISE trial

EMBOLISE trial

View Details
Status
Done
logo
Parent item
Last edited time
Aug 15, 2026 11:51 PM GMT+0
MCQ
MCQ
RAG
RAG

Details of the study

  • Patients with symptomatic subacute or chronic subdural hematoma requiring surgical evacuation randomized to middle meningeal artery embolization plus surgery versus surgery alone.

Study design

  • Class Of Evidence
    • Randomized controlled trial
  • Randomisation
    • 1:1 ratio with permuted-block randomization and stratification
  • Number Of Patients
    • 400 total (197 treatment, 203 control)
  • Length Of Follow Up
    • 90 days for primary outcome
  • Number Of Centres
    • 39 centers in the United States

Stratification

  • Hematoma thickness, Markwalder Grading Scale, surgery type, antithrombotic use

Outcome Measures

  • Primary: reoperation for recurrence/progression within 90 days; secondary: neurologic function (modified Rankin scale) at 90 days

Results

  • Primary end point: 4.1% (8/197) treatment vs 11.3% (23/203) control (RR 0.36, P=0.008).
  • Functional deterioration: 11.9% vs 9.8% (risk difference 2.1%, 95% CI -4.8 to 8.9).
  • Mortality at 90 days: 5.1% (treatment) vs 3.0% (control).
  • Serious adverse events related to embolization by 30 days: 2.0% (4/197) in treatment, including disabling stroke in 2.

Conclusion

  • Middle meningeal artery embolization plus surgery was associated with lower risk of hematoma recurrence requiring reoperation than surgery alone, with further safety study needed.

Critique

  • Open-label design prone to bias due to surgeon judgment for primary outcome.
  • Substantial loss to follow-up (13.2%) due to older population and pandemic.
  • Trial not powered for safety outcomes (e.g., stroke, neurologic death).
  • Lippa 2025: MMAE cannot yet be considered standard treatment for CS-DH due to insufficient evidence
    • Unequal distribution of prerandomization surgeries (28.6% vs 39.6%)
    • Study not powered to detect differences in stroke rates or neurologic deaths
    • Industry sponsorship and high industry involvement disclosures raise bias concerns
    • Exclusion of very high-risk patients limits applicability to common frail populations