You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical neurology
Original research
Stenting versus medical treatment for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a matched-control study
  1. Raynald1,
  2. Hongchao Yang2,
  3. Xu Tong1,
  4. Xiaochuan Huo1,
  5. Xiaoqing Li1,
  6. Lian Liu1,
  7. Binbin Sui3,
  8. Hui Qu4,
  9. Kehui Dong4,
  10. Yilong Wang4,
  11. Shuran Wang5,
  12. Zhongrong Miao1,
  13. Dapeng Mo1
  1. 1 Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  2. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing ChaoYang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  3. 3 Department of Radiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  4. 4 Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  5. 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dapeng Mo, Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China; bjttmodp{at}163.com

Abstract

Background This prospective cohort study compared the outcomes of stenting and medical treatment for patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) and venous sinus stenosis (VSS).

Methods In this single-center cohort study, patients with IIH and VSS were evaluated between January 2014 and December 2019 with follow-up periods of 1, 3, and 6 months. The patients received either stenting or medical treatment. The two groups underwent 1:1 matching using propensity score analysis, and the clinical outcomes were compared.

Results Following 1:1 matching, 36 patients who underwent stenting and 36 who underwent medical treatment were matched. The median improvements in the papilledema Frisén grade were greater in the stenting group at 1 month (−2 vs 0), 3 months (−3 vs −1), and 6 months (−3 vs −1) than in the medical treatment group. Patients who received stenting treatment had a significantly higher prevalence of complete resolution of their respective symptoms (headache, tinnitus, or visual disturbances) at 3 months (58.3% vs 13.9%, OR 8.68, 95% CI 2.74 to 27.52) and 6 months (80.6% vs 22.2%, OR 14.50, 95% CI 4.64 to 45.32) than those receiving medical treatment.

Conclusions This matched-control study shows that stenting has a greater efficacy rate and rapid resolution of papilledema and its respective symptoms compared with medical treatment.

  • stenosis
  • vein

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2022-019191

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • R- and HY contributed equally.

    • Contributors DM, R, HY, and XT: conceptualization, data collection, analysis, drafting original manuscript. XL, LL, and SW: data collection. BS, HQ, KD, YW, and ZM: oversight, revising original manuscript. DM is the guarantor for this work and accepts responsibility for the data presented.

    • Funding Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program, grant number PX2017009 and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, grant number 2020-YJ-008.

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.