Background Some patients undergoing dural sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) develop clinical and hemodynamic failure (recurrence of the pressure gradient) owing to stent-adjacent stenosis.
Objective To characterize factors associated with hemodynamic failure, and to describe outcomes of patients after repeat stenting.
Materials and methods We reviewed the initial and follow-up clinical, venographic, and hemodynamic data in 39 patients with IIH treated over 17 years with stenting. Thirty-two had follow-up angiographic and hemodynamic data at 1–99 months (mean 27.6, median 19.5 months). Eight patients were treated with 12 repeat stenting procedures, including extended stenting into the superior sagittal sinus (SSS).
Results All patients had an initial successful hemodynamic result with the pressure gradient reduced from 10–43 to 0–7 mm Hg. 10/32 patients (31.3%), all women, developed new stenoses in the transverse sinus or posterior SSS above the stent with a recurrent pressure gradient. 7/9 patients with pure extrinsic stenosis of the transverse-sigmoid junction pre-stenting developed new stenoses and hemodynamic failure. All patients with hemodynamic failure who were restented had early and mid-term documented hemodynamic success at 1.7–50 months. They were free from papilledema at 3.8–50 months after the last restenting, and 11.5–99.5 months after initial stent placement (mean 45.3, median 38.5 months).
Conclusions Pure extrinsic compression of the transverse-sigmoid junction and female gender were strongly associated with hemodynamic failure. Eight patients with hemodynamic failure who were restented had successful control of papilledema, including 4/4 who had extended stenting into the SSS.
- Intracranial Pressure
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 Data acquisition and interpretation: DAK, JS, XH, QM, DEC, CDR, PSS, KEL, VSP, JLB. Drafting article: DAK, XH, DEC. Statistical analysis: KEL. Critical revision of article: DAK, QM, DEC, CDR, PSS, KEL, VSP, JLB. Reviewed manuscript as submitted: DAK, JS, XH, QM, DEC, CDR, PSS, KEL, VSP, JLB. Study supervisor: DAK.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Colorado multi-institutional review board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement The authors agree to share any data on request. Any data from this study are available by contacting the corresponding author.