ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2026
Reinitiating anticoagulation in chronic subdural hematomas: does adding middle meningeal artery embolization add value? A multi-institutional, multinational database study.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reinitiating antiplatelet therapy in chronic subdural hematoma: Does adjunctive middle meningeal artery embolization improve outcomes?Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Canadian radiology: 2025 update.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding "Standalone Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization versus Medical Management for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: A Multiinstitutional and Multinational Database Study.World neurosurgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of early anticoagulation in chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) patients treated with surgery, with or without middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE), remains unclear. This study evaluates 6-month outcomes among cSDH patients who received early anticoagulation following surgery with adjunct MMAE and compares outcomes between anticoagulated patients treated with surgery alone versus surgery plus MMAE.
methodsPatients aged ≥18 years with cSDH who underwent surgery alone or surgery plus MMAE and received anticoagulation were identified using the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and RXNORM codes on the TriNetX platform. Two analyses were performed: surgery plus MMAE cohort, stratified by anticoagulation use within 1 month; and anticoagulated patients, stratified by surgery alone versus surgery plus MMAE. Primary outcomes included repeat surgery and 6-month mortality; secondary outcomes included repeat intracranial hemorrhage and cerebral infarction.
resultsAmong 801 patients treated with surgery plus MMAE, 143 received anticoagulation and 658 did not. In this cohort, no significant differences were observed in rates of repeat surgery (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.403 to 2.483) or 6-month mortality (OR 0.557, 95% CI 0.245 to 1.263) between those who received anticoagulation and those who did not. When comparing 2301 patients who underwent surgery alone and received anticoagulation to the 143 patients who received anticoagulation following surgery plus MMAE, the latter group had significantly lower mortality (7.9% vs 19.4%; OR 0.356, 95% CI 0.169 to 0.751, P=0.005) and reduced rates of repeat intracranial hemorrhage (54.0% vs 66.9%; OR 0.580, 95% CI 0.357 to 0.942, P=0.027).
conclusionEarly anticoagulation following surgery with adjunct MMAE appears safe and is associated with reduced mortality and hemorrhage risk compared with surgery alone in anticoagulated patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.