John J Halperin1, Roger Kurlan1, Jason M Schwalb1, Michael D Cusimano1, Gary Gronseth1, David Gloss1. 1. From the Overlook Medical Center (J.J.H., R.K.), Atlantic Neuroscience Institute, Summit, NJ; Department of Neurosurgery (J.M.S., M.D.C.), Henry Ford Medical Group, West Bloomfield, MI; Division of Neurosurgery (M.D.C.), St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Neurology (G.G.), University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City; and Department of Neurology (D.G.), Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated evidence for utility of shunting in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and for predictors of shunting effectiveness. METHODS: We identified and classified relevant published studies according to 2004 and 2011 American Academy of Neurology methodology. RESULTS: Of 21 articles, we identified 3 Class I articles. CONCLUSIONS: Shunting is possibly effective in iNPH (96% chance subjective improvement, 83% chance improvement on timed walk test at 6 months) (3 Class III). Serious adverse event risk was 11% (1 Class III). Predictors of success included elevated Ro (1 Class I, multiple Class II), impaired cerebral blood flow reactivity to acetazolamide (by SPECT) (1 Class I), and positive response to either external lumbar drainage (1 Class III) or repeated lumbar punctures. Age may not be a prognostic factor (1 Class II). Data are insufficient to judge efficacy of radionuclide cisternography or aqueductal flow measurement by MRI. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians may choose to offer shunting for subjective iNPH symptoms and gait (Level C). Because of significant adverse event risk, risks and benefits should be carefully weighed (Level B). Clinicians should inform patients with iNPH with elevated Ro and their families that they have an increased chance of responding to shunting compared with those without such elevation (Level B). Clinicians may counsel patients with iNPH and their families that (1) positive response to external lumbar drainage or to repeated lumbar punctures increases the chance of response to shunting, and (2) increasing age does not decrease the chance of shunting being successful (both Level C).
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated evidence for utility of shunting in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and for predictors of shunting effectiveness. METHODS: We identified and classified relevant published studies according to 2004 and 2011 American Academy of Neurology methodology. RESULTS: Of 21 articles, we identified 3 Class I articles. CONCLUSIONS: Shunting is possibly effective in iNPH (96% chance subjective improvement, 83% chance improvement on timed walk test at 6 months) (3 Class III). Serious adverse event risk was 11% (1 Class III). Predictors of success included elevated Ro (1 Class I, multiple Class II), impaired cerebral blood flow reactivity to acetazolamide (by SPECT) (1 Class I), and positive response to either external lumbar drainage (1 Class III) or repeated lumbar punctures. Age may not be a prognostic factor (1 Class II). Data are insufficient to judge efficacy of radionuclide cisternography or aqueductal flow measurement by MRI. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians may choose to offer shunting for subjective iNPH symptoms and gait (Level C). Because of significant adverse event risk, risks and benefits should be carefully weighed (Level B). Clinicians should inform patients with iNPH with elevated Ro and their families that they have an increased chance of responding to shunting compared with those without such elevation (Level B). Clinicians may counsel patients with iNPH and their families that (1) positive response to external lumbar drainage or to repeated lumbar punctures increases the chance of response to shunting, and (2) increasing age does not decrease the chance of shunting being successful (both Level C).
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sunil Patel; Edward B Lee; Sharon X Xie; Anica Law; Eric M Jackson; Steven E Arnold; Christopher M Clark; Leslie M Shaw; M Sean Grady; John Q Trojanowski; Roy H Hamilton Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2012-03-23
Authors: Giovanni Mostile; Giacomo Portaro; Francesco Certo; Antonina Luca; Roberta Manna; Roberta Terranova; Roberto Altieri; Alessandra Nicoletti; Giuseppe Maria Vincenzo Barbagallo; Mario Zappia Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: A M Blitz; J Shin; O Balédent; G Pagé; L W Bonham; D A Herzka; A R Moghekar; D Rigamonti Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J F Carlsen; A D L Backlund; C A Mardal; S Taudorf; A V Holst; T N Munch; A E Hansen; S G Hasselbalch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ilko L Maier; Marielle Heide; Sabine Hofer; Peter Dechent; Ingo Fiss; Christian von der Brelie; Veit Rohde; Jens Frahm; Mathias Bähr; Jan Liman Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 3.649