[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.90.95. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 494
Citations 0
Comment & Response
September 10, 2014

Conservative Management vs Intervention for Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
  • 2Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
  • 3Institute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England
JAMA. 2014;312(10):1058-1059. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.8759

In Reply Neurosurgical colleagues have raised issues about our study comparing conservative management and intervention for unruptured bAVMs that do not invalidate our findings but instead provide an opportunity to give more detail, correct misinterpretations, and reemphasize the hierarchy of evidence.1

First, it is unlikely that some of the “other” deaths in the conservative group were related to untreated bAVMs. Every death was adjudicated with all available clinical, radiographic, and pathological information. The 26 other deaths were due to cancer (n = 9), infection (n = 6), cardiovascular disease (n = 5), ischemic stroke unrelated to bAVM (n = 4), subdural hematoma unrelated to bAVM (n = 1), and drug overdose (n = 1). Dr Zaidi and colleagues note that 4 deaths in the intervention group and 11 deaths in the conservative group were possibly due to bAVM. Given that we did not prespecify this comparison, a post hoc comparison should be interpreted cautiously; we will continue to monitor deaths.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×