Abstract
Background Given the low haemorrhagic risk of intracranial low-grade dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs), the benefits of routine intervention remain controversial. This study compares patient outcomes treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus conservative management. Method Multicentre retrospective analysis of the Consortium for Dural Arteriovenous Fistula Outcomes Research and the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation data. Inclusion criteria were (1) intracranial low-grade dAVF diagnosed by catheter-based angiography, (2) no prior dAVF-related haemorrhage and (3) management with upfront SRS (intervention group) or conservative management (observation group). The primary outcome was symptomatic improvement. Secondary outcomes included dAVF obliteration, up-conversion, haemorrhage, improvement and favourable modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at follow-up. Results 304 patients with a mean age of 56 years (SD 13.5) and a follow-up of 46.7 months (SD 45.5) were included. 135 (44.4%) were managed conservatively and 169 (55.6%) had upfront SRS. Compared with the observation group, symptomatic and mRS Score improvement (≥1-point decrease in baseline score) was more likely in the intervention group (95.1% vs 58.5%; OR=13.75 (5.61–33.69) and 37.0% vs 24.0%; OR=1.85 (1.09–3.15), respectively). These findings remained significant after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. Remaining outcomes were similar between groups. The all-cause mortality rate was 5.4% (n=16), unrelated to the dAVF or treatment. Five (3.0%) SRS-related complications were reported and resolved during the follow-up period. Conclusions SRS was associated with increased symptomatic and mRS Score improvement for low-grade dAVFs compared with conservative management. SRS had a low complication risk and did not appear to alter dAVF obliteration or haemorrhage. Future prospective trials on SRS as a first-line intervention for symptomatic low-grade dAVFs should be considered. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.