Zilver stent versus Carotid Wallstent for endovascular treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension

被引:6
|
作者
Bilgin, Cem [1 ,7 ]
Oliver, Alexander A. [2 ]
Cutsforth-Gregory, Jeremy K. [3 ]
Chen, John J. [4 ]
Rammos, Stylianos K. [5 ]
Cloft, Harry J. [1 ]
Lanzino, Giuseppe [6 ]
Kallmes, David F. [1 ]
Brinjikji, Waleed [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Radiol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin Minnesota, Biomed Engn, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Neurol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Ophthalmol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[5] Arkansas Neurosci Inst, Neurosurg, Little Rock, AR USA
[6] Mayo Clin Minnesota, Neurosurg, Rochester, MN USA
[7] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Intracranial Pressure; Stenosis; Stent; SINUS; PRESSURE; STENOSIS;
D O I
10.1136/jnis-2022-019659
中图分类号
R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
100207 ;
摘要
BackgroundVenous sinus stenting (VSS) is a promising treatment option for medically refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). There are no published studies comparing the performance of different types of stents employed in VSS procedures. In this study we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes of the Zilver 518 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) and the Carotid Wallstent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) devices. MethodsRecords of patients with IIH who underwent VSS between January 2015 and February 2022 at a single referral center were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with the Zilver stent or Carotid Wallstent were included in the study. Stent model and size data, pre- and post-treatment pressure gradients, technical and safety outcomes, and pre- and post- stenting papilledema, headache, and tinnitus severity were collected. The chi(2) and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were used for categorical data and the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were employed to examine the differences in non-categorical variables. ResultsA total of 81 procedures (28 (34.5%) with the Zilver stent and 53 (65.5%) with the Carotid Wallstent) were performed in 76 patients. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with the Zilver stent (22.56 +/- 10.2 vs 33.9 +/- 15 min, p=0.001). The papilledema improvement and resolution rates did not significantly differ between groups (94.7% vs 94.5%, p>0.99 for improvement; 78.9% vs 67.5%, p=0.37 for resolution). The tinnitus improvement and resolution rates in the Zilver stent group were significantly higher than those of the Carotid Wallstent group (100% vs 78.9%, p=0.041; 90% vs 63.1%, p=0.03, respectively). Additionally, the Zilver stent provided a significantly higher rate of headache resolution and improvement than the Carotid Wallstent (84.6% vs 27.6%, p=0.001 for resolution; 92.3% vs 72.3%, p=0.043 for improvement). One patient from the Carotid Wallstent group underwent re-stenting due to in-stent stenosis and refractory papilledema. No significant in-stent stenosis was observed in the Zilver stent group. ConclusionStent choice may affect VSS outcomes. The Zilver stent provided better clinical outcomes than the Carotid Wallstent, with significantly shorter procedure times. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of available venous stents for IIH.
引用
收藏
页码:1269 / +
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Casper Versus Precise Stent for the Treatment of Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
    Nebiyat F. Belachew
    Severin Baschung
    William Almiri
    Ruben Encinas
    Johannes Kaesmacher
    Tomas Dobrocky
    Christoph J. Schankin
    Mathias Abegg
    Eike I. Piechowiak
    Andreas Raabe
    Jan Gralla
    Pasquale Mordasini
    Clinical Neuroradiology, 2021, 31 : 853 - 862
  • [2] Casper Versus Precise Stent for the Treatment of Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
    Belachew, Nebiyat F.
    Baschung, Severin
    Almiri, William
    Encinas, Ruben
    Kaesmacher, Johannes
    Dobrocky, Tomas
    Schankin, Christoph J.
    Abegg, Mathias
    Piechowiak, Eike, I
    Raabe, Andreas
    Gralla, Jan
    Mordasini, Pasquale
    CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (03) : 853 - 862
  • [3] Endovascular Treatment for Severe Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
    Pandya, Dhruvil
    Remler, Bernd
    Lynch, John
    Zaidat, Osama
    Fitzsimmons, Brian-Fred
    NEUROLOGY, 2011, 76 (09) : A514 - A514
  • [4] Correction to: Casper Versus Precise Stent for the Treatment of Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
    Nebiyat F. Belachew
    Severin Baschung
    William Almiri
    Ruben Encinas
    Johannes Kaesmacher
    Tomas Dobrocky
    Christoph J. Schankin
    Mathias Abegg
    Eike I. Piechowiak
    Andreas Raabe
    Jan Gralla
    Pasquale Mordasini
    Clinical Neuroradiology, 2021, 31 : 863 - 864
  • [5] Endovascular treatment considerations in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH)
    Heinke Pulhorn
    Arun Chandran
    Mani Puthuran
    Hans Nahser
    Catherine McMahon
    Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, 12 (Suppl 1)
  • [6] Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: Stent or not
    Donnet, A.
    REVUE NEUROLOGIQUE, 2012, 168 (10) : 685 - 690
  • [7] National trends in the endovascular and surgical treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension
    Abbasi, Mohammad Hossein
    Patel, Smit D.
    Ashour, Ramsey R.
    Miley, Jefferson T.
    Paydarfar, David
    Warach, Steven
    Saber, Hamidreza
    JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2024, 33 (05):
  • [8] Endovascular Treatment of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Secondary to Venous Stenosis
    Haas, Leandro Jose
    Severino, Wesley
    Wandall, Guilherme
    Mees, Wallace
    Scheidt, Gabriela
    Przysiezny, Bernardo
    Zimmermann, Amanda
    Staedele, Guilherme
    Sabel, Bruno Rafael
    Martins, Julia
    Hessmann, Julia Dumes
    BRAZILIAN NEUROSURGERY-ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE NEUROCIRURGIA, 2024, 43 (04): : e251 - e257
  • [9] Stenoses in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: To stent or not to stent? Reply
    Rohr, A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 2008, 29 (02) : 215 - 216
  • [10] Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension and the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial
    Wall, Michael
    JOURNAL OF NEURO-OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 33 (01) : 1 - 3