Cameron M. McDougall, Vin Shen Ban, Jeffrey Beecher, Lee Pride and Babu G. Welch
The role of venous sinus stenting (VSS) for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is not well understood. The aim of this systematic review is to attempt to identify subsets of patients with IIH who will benefit from VSS based on the pressure gradients of their venous sinus stenosis.
MEDLINE/PubMed was searched for studies reporting venous pressure gradients across the stenotic segment of the venous sinus, pre- and post-stent pressure gradients, and clinical outcomes after VSS. Findings are reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
From 32 eligible studies, a total of 186 patients were included in the analysis. Patients who had favorable outcomes had higher mean pressure gradients (22.8 ± 11.5 mm Hg vs 17.4 ± 8.0 mm Hg, p = 0.033) and higher changes in pressure gradients after stent placement (19.4 ± 10.0 mm Hg vs 12.0 ± 6.0 mm Hg, p = 0.006) compared with those with unfavorable outcomes. The post-stent pressure gradients between the 2 groups were not significantly different (2.8 ± 4.0 mm Hg vs 2.7 ± 2.0 mm Hg, p = 0.934). In a multivariate stepwise logistic regression controlling for age, sex, body mass index, CSF opening pressure, pre-stent pressure gradient, and post-stent pressure gradient, the change in pressure gradient with stent placement was found to be an independent predictor of favorable outcome (p = 0.028). Using a pressure gradient of 21 as a cutoff, 81/86 (94.2%) of patients with a gradient > 21 achieved favorable outcomes, compared with 82/100 (82.0%) of patients with a gradient ≤ 21 (p = 0.022).
There appears to be a relationship between the pressure gradient of venous sinus stenosis and the success of VSS in IIH. A randomized controlled trial would help elucidate this relationship and potentially guide patient selection.
Jeffrey S. Beecher, Kristopher Lyon, Vin Shen Ban, Awais Vance, Cameron M. McDougall, Louis A. Whitworth, Jonathan A. White, Duke Samson, H. Hunt Batjer and Babu G. Welch
Despite a hemorrhagic presentation, many patients with arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) do not require emergency resection. The timing of definitive management is not standardized in the cerebrovascular community. This study was designed to evaluate the safety of delaying AVM treatment in clinically stable patients with a new hemorrhagic presentation. The authors examined the rate of rehemorrhage or neurological decline in a cohort of patients with ruptured brain AVMs during a period of time posthemorrhage.
Patients presenting to the authors’ institution from January 2000 to December 2015 with ruptured brain AVMs treated at least 4 weeks posthemorrhage were included in this analysis. Exclusion criteria were ruptured AVMs that required emergency surgery involving resection of the AVM, prior treatment of AVM at another institution, or treatment of lesions within 4 weeks for other reasons (subacute surgery). The primary outcome measure was time from initial hemorrhage to treatment failure (defined as rehemorrhage or neurological decline as a direct result of the AVM). Patient-days were calculated from the day of initial rupture until the day AVM treatment was initiated or treatment failed.
Of 102 ruptured AVMs in 102 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 7 (6.9%) failed the treatment paradigm. Six patients (5.8%) had a new hemorrhage within a median of 248 days (interquartile range 33–1364 days). The total “at risk” period was 18,740 patient-days, yielding a rehemorrhage rate of 11.5% per patient-year, or 0.96% per patient-month. Twelve (11.8%) of 102 patients were found to have an associated aneurysm. In this group there was a single (8.3%) new hemorrhage during a total at-risk period of 263 patient-days until the aneurysm was secured, yielding a rehemorrhage risk of 11.4% per patient-month.
It is the authors’ practice to rehabilitate patients after brain AVM rupture with a plan for elective treatment of the AVM. The present data are useful in that the findings quantify the risk of the authors’ treatment strategy. These findings indicate that delaying intervention for at least 4 weeks after the initial hemorrhage subjects the patient to a low (< 1%) risk of rehemorrhage. The authors modified the treatment paradigm when a high-risk feature, such as an associated intracranial aneurysm, was identified.