You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Socioeconomics
Original research
A national survey of venous sinus stenting practices for idiopathic intracranial hypertension
  1. Kyle M Fargen1,
  2. Carol Kittel2,
  3. Matthew R Amans3,
  4. Waleed Brinjikji4,
  5. Ferdinand Hui5
  1. 1 Neurological Surgery and Radiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2 Neurological Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3 Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, San Francisco, California, USA
  4. 4 Radiology and Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
  5. 5 Neuroscience Institute, Queen's Medical Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kyle M Fargen, Neurological Surgery and Radiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 55905, USA; kfargen{at}wakehealth.edu

Abstract

Background Little is currently known about physician opinions and preferences on venous sinus stenting (VSS) for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), practice patterns, or clinical volumes.

Methods A 19 question online survey was designed and distributed to physician members of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS).

Results A total of 107 individual survey responses were obtained (14% of SNIS members). The majority of respondents (85%) indicated that they had performed at least one VSS procedure independently during their careers. Mean (SD) and median (range) career case volumes were 20.9 (33.8) and 10.0 (0.0–200.0), respectively. On a 1–10 scale, most respondents reported a high level of interest in treating IIH patients with VSS (median 8), a high level of comfort/expertise in treating IIH patients with VSS (median 9), and that VSS was effective in the long term reduction of symptoms and papilledema in IIH patients (median 8). Fifty-nine per cent of respondents reported increasing VSS volumes compared with previous years. A major complication during a VSS procedure, including two deaths, was reported by 11% of respondents.

Conclusions This is the first study designed to understand the opinions and practices of neurointerventionists regarding VSS for IIH. Overall physician opinion on VSS was quite positive, supported by increasing procedural volumes reported by most over the past few years. However, only a small percentage of respondents had substantial experience with VSS and major complications were not rare.

  • Intervention
  • Intracranial Pressure
  • Stent
  • Stenosis
  • Vein

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018832

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

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Concept: KMF. Survey design: KMF, MRA, WB, and FH. Statistical analysis: CK. Manuscript composition: all authors. Guarantor: KMF.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    • 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.