Background Venous sinus stenting for dural sinus stenoses is an emerging alternative to cerebrospinal fluid diversion in cases of medically refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Juxta-stent ‘re-stenoses’ have been reported and managed alternatively with ventricular shunting or stent revision. Identification of factors that might predispose patients to recurrent narrowing may help to select or exclude patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension for venous sinus stenting.
Methods We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database spanning December 2011 to May 2015 of all patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension who were screened for possible venous sinus stenting, including only patients who received a stent, noting symptomatic improvements, changes in opening lumbar puncture pressure, demographic characteristics, and any subsequent intervention after stent placement. Fisher's exact test and logistic regression were used to test each of seven potential predictors for retreatment.
Results There were eight revisions in 31 patients (25.8%). Among Caucasians, 8.0% required a revision compared with 100% of African-Americans (p<0.001). The c-index for race was 0.857. Body mass index (BMI) was also a significant predictor of revision (p=0.031): among class III obese patients the revision rate was 46.2% compared with 16.7% among class I and II obese patients and 0% among overweight to normal weight patients.
Conclusions BMI was a significant predictor of revision, suggesting that higher BMI may have a higher risk of revision. The small number of African-Americans in the study makes interpretation of the practical significance of the revision rate in these patients uncertain. None of the other studied factors was statistically significant.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors Each author made a material contribution to the article, its revision, and the final approval of the article for submission.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.