Alexander McGirr1, Safraz Mohammed, Roger Kurlan, Michael D Cusimano. 1. Injury Prevention Research, St-Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: Alexander.mcgirr@alum.utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a syndrome that may be reversible by diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). It is increasingly recognized, and accordingly rates of CSF diversion are increasing despite the absence of level I evidence of efficacy, non-neglible rate of complications and an unclear natural history. METHODS: A total of 349 neurosurgeons, neurologists, geriatricians and neuropsychiatrists rated the perceived efficacy of CSF diversion, the duration of effect of CSF diversion, and the risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH. These physicians then rated the need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CSF diversion in iNPH. Participants detailed their desired selection criteria and supportive testing for a RCT, and their preferred control group. RESULTS: Physicians believe that there is uncertain efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH, as well as the expected duration of this benefit and the risk-benefit ratio for patients. The greatest degree of uncertainty related to the long-term benefit of surgery. Accordingly, over 75% desire a RCT to determine the efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH. Only 2.7% of participants believe a RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is unethical. Patients without a shunt and a programmable valve in the 'off' setting were the preferred control groups. CONCLUSION: A RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is absent from the literature. The majority (>75%) of physicians involved in the diagnosis and treatment of iNPH believe a RCT is required to determine the efficacy, duration of efficacy and risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH.
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a syndrome that may be reversible by diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). It is increasingly recognized, and accordingly rates of CSF diversion are increasing despite the absence of level I evidence of efficacy, non-neglible rate of complications and an unclear natural history. METHODS: A total of 349 neurosurgeons, neurologists, geriatricians and neuropsychiatrists rated the perceived efficacy of CSF diversion, the duration of effect of CSF diversion, and the risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH. These physicians then rated the need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CSF diversion in iNPH. Participants detailed their desired selection criteria and supportive testing for a RCT, and their preferred control group. RESULTS: Physicians believe that there is uncertain efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH, as well as the expected duration of this benefit and the risk-benefit ratio for patients. The greatest degree of uncertainty related to the long-term benefit of surgery. Accordingly, over 75% desire a RCT to determine the efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH. Only 2.7% of participants believe a RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is unethical. Patients without a shunt and a programmable valve in the 'off' setting were the preferred control groups. CONCLUSION: A RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is absent from the literature. The majority (>75%) of physicians involved in the diagnosis and treatment of iNPH believe a RCT is required to determine the efficacy, duration of efficacy and risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH.