Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letters to the Editor
Arteriovenous malformation embocure score (AVMES): response
  1. Donnie L Bell,
  2. Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi,
  3. Joshua A Hirsch
  1. Neuroendovascular Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Donnie L Bell, Massachusetts General Hospital, Neuroendovascular Service, GRB 241, Boston, MA 02114, USA; d.l.bell.jr{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with great interest the paper by Lopes et al on the arteriovenous malformation embocure score (AVMES).1 We applaud the authors on this timely paper addressing a central issue in the management of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVM)—namely, risk stratification for endovascular treatment of these lesions.

In April 2015 we published a paper entitled ‘The application of a novel brain arteriovenous malformation endovascular grading scale for transarterial embolization’ in the American Journal of Neuroradiology.2 In that retrospective analysis we applied an endovascular grading scale to pretreatment cerebral angiograms in 126 patients treated between 2008 and 2013. Our scale consists of five points that assess three bAVM components: arterial feeders (1–2, 1 point; 3–5, 2 points; ≤6, 3 points, with predominant arterial feeders en passage given a maximal score), eloquence based on Spetzler–Martin criteria (absence=0, presence=1 point), and the presence of an arteriovenous fistula component as defined by Yuki et al (absence=0, presence=1 point).3 ,4 Our results showed that endovascular grades of ≤2 were associated with endovascular cure and favorable outcomes, while endovascular grades of ≤3 were associated with multimodal cure or significant lesion reduction and favorable …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors contributed to this letter.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.