General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The choice of anesthesia type (general anesthesia [GA] vs nongeneral anesthesia [non-GA]) in middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) procedures for chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH) differs between institutions and left to care team discretion given lack of standard guidelines. We compare the outcomes of GA vs non-GA in MMAE. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving MMAE for cSDH at 14 North American centers (2018-2023) were included. Clinical, cSDH characteristics, and technical/clinical outcomes were compared between the GA/non-GA groups. Using propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched controlling for age, baseline modified Rankin Scale, concurrent/prior surgery, hematoma thickness/midline shift, and baseline antiplatelet/anticoagulation. The primary end points included surgical rescue and radiographic success rates (≥50% reduction in maximum hematoma thickness with minimum 2 weeks of imaging). Secondary end points included technical feasibility, procedural complications, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-eight patients (median age 73 years, 73.2% male patients) underwent 956 MMAE procedures, 667 (70.4%) were non-GA and 280 were GA (29.6%). After running 1:3 PSM algorithm, this resulted in 153 and 296 in the GA and non-GA groups, respectively. There were no baseline/procedural differences between the groups except radial access more significantly used in the non-GA group ( P = .001). There was no difference between the groups in procedural technical feasibility, complications rate, length of stay, surgical rescue rates, or favorable functional outcome at the last follow-up. Subsequent 1:1 sensitivity PSM retained the same results. Bilateral MMAE procedures were more performed under non-GA group (75.8% vs 67.2%; P = .01); no differences were noted in clinical/radiographic outcomes between bilateral vs unilateral MMAE, except for longer procedure duration in the bilateral group (median 73 minutes [IQR 48.3-100] vs 54 minutes [39-75]; P < .0001). Another PSM analysis comparing GA vs non-GA in patients undergoing stand-alone MMAE retained similar associations. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in radiological improvement/clinical outcomes between GA and non-GA for MMAE.