| Literature DB >> 34453214 |
Aku L Kaipainen1,2, Erik Martoma3, Tero Puustinen3, Joona Tervonen3, Henna-Kaisa Jyrkkänen3, Jussi J Paterno4, Anna Kotkansalo5, Susanna Rantala3, Ulla Vanhanen3, Ville Leinonen3, Soili M Lehto6,7,8, Matti Iso-Mustajärvi9, Antti-Pekka Elomaa3,10, Sara Qvarlander11, Terhi J Huuskonen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a rare disease of unknown aetiology related possibly to disturbed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics and characterised by elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) causing optic nerve atrophy if not timely treated. We studied CSF dynamics of the IIH patients based on the available literature and our well-defined cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics; Cerebrospinal fluid pressure measurement; Idiopathic intracranial hypertension
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34453214 PMCID: PMC8599224 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-04940-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) ISSN: 0001-6268 Impact factor: 2.216
Fig. 1The flowchart of literature research
Literature review of CSF dynamics in IIH
| Authors | Data collection | Number of patients (% were females) | Mean age of patients (range) | CSF dynamics methods | Variables studied | CSF dynamics findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lalou et al. (2020) | Case series | *10 patients (90%) | 41 (22–55) | *ICP monitoring (LIF) *DRCV intracranial | CSFP, SSP, sex, age | *CSFP and SSP are coupled *CSFP increase during CSF infusion produces an increase in SSP *During drainage, CSFP and SSP decrease until certain point, when CSFP may decrease further while SSP remains constant |
| Pradeep et al. (2020) | Prospective study | *13 patients (77%) | 29.9 (16–40) | *ICP monitoring (LP) | OP, CP, V, age | *CSFP elevated |
| Markey et al. (2020) | A multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | *31 patients (100%) | 31.2 (18–55) | *ICP monitoring (LP) | OP, age | *CSFP increased in IIH *11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor caused significant reduction in ICP |
| Lalou et al. (2020) | Retrospective cohort | *13 patients (85%) *5 patients not PTCS? (80%) | NA | *ICP monitoring (LIF) | CSFP, SSP, AMP, EL, RAP, LBP, UBP, sex | *CSFP and AMP elevated in IIH *SSP and EL were above threshold in IIH |
| Yilmaz et al. (2019) | Retrospective cohort | *29 IIH patients (93%) *30 controls (17%) *Mixed cohort | 37.3 (18–57) | *ICP monitoring (LP) | OP, sex, age | *OP was increased in the presence of MR venography assessed transverse sinus compression |
| Griffith et al. (2018) | Retrospective cohort | *116 patients (94%) | 33.5 (NA) | *ICP monitoring (LP) | OP, CP, V, EL, PVI | *As OP increases, the EL increases in a linear fashion while the PVI decreases |
| Chisholm et al. (2017) | Single-center retrospective cohort | *20 IIH patients (85%) *29 controls (62%) *Mixed cohort | 35 (NA) | *ICP monitoring (LP) | OP, CP, V, EL, PVI | *Association between EL and PVI *EL is increased and PVI is decreased in IIH |
| Chari et al. (2017) | Retrospective review of prospectively collected cohort | *35 IIH patients (NA %) *41 Conservatively managed *Mixed cohort | 34.9 (NA) | *ICP monitoring (intracranial) | CSFP, AMP, age | *ICP and AMP had a linear direct relationship in IIH *AMP and ICP were elevated in IIH |
| Thompson et al. (2017) | Retrospective cohort | *7 IIH patients (NA %) Mixed cohort | For whole cohort 45.8 (22–83) | *ICP monitoring (intracranial) | ICP, AMP | *A period of 24-h ICP monitoring is an accurate diagnostic option |
| Pickard et al. (2008) | Case series | *9 patients (89%) | 41 (22–55) | *ICP monitoring (LIF)*DRCV (intracranial) | CSFP, SSP, sex, age | *Pcsf slightly exceeded Pss *CSF infusion provoked rises in Pcsf and Pss *CSF drainage decreased Pcsf compared to Pss |
| Karahalios et al. (1996) | Case series | 10 patients (70%) | 24 (2–40) | ICP monitoring (lumbar/intracranial) | CSFP, SSP, CVP, sex, age | *Pcsf elevated *CVP elevated *Pss elevated |
| Gideon et al. (1994) | Case-control study | *12 patients (67%) *10 controls | 38 (12–61) | ICP monitoring (LIF) | ICP, R, sex, age | *Increased R *Increased CSF volume amplitude |
| Malm et al. (1992) | Prospective case-control study | *13 clear IIH patients (69%) *45 controls | 35 (16–59) | ICP monitoring LIF) | CSFP, COP, F, PDOP, SSP | *CSFP increased *COP significantly reduced *PDOP increased *SSP was elevated |
| Hayashi et al. (1991) | Case series | *8 IIH patients (NA %) *Mixed cohort | NA | Continuous ICP monitoring (LIF and intracranial) | C, plateau waves (B and C waves), F | *C reduced |
| Lundar et al. (1990) | Case series | *6 patients (50%) | 16 (3–39) | ICP monitoring (LIF and intracranial) | ICP, R, OP, PP, EPD, sex, age | *ICP increased *R from upper normal to pathologically increased *EPD labile but increased with a number of B waves |
| Shakhnovich et al. (1990) | Case-control study | *67 IIH patients (86%) *Mixed cohort | NA (14–63) | Continuous ICP monitoring (LIF) | EL, F, R, PIS | *EL increased *R significantly increased *No correlation between PIS and R |
| Borgesen et al. (1987) | Case-control study | *23 IIH patients (NA %) *Mixed cohort | NA | Continous ICP monitoring (intracranial) | ICP, R, F, duration of symptoms, Evans ratio, sex, age | *ICP increased with R *F decreased in the higher ICP values *The Evans ratio was higher in patients with low or normal ICP *Higher ICP in patients with a short duration of symptoms *R was lower in patients with a long duration of symptoms |
| Gjerris et al. (1985) | Case series | *14 patients (71%) | 34 (12–61) | Continous ICP monitoring (intracranial) | ICP, C, CBF, plateau waves, B waves, sex, age | *ICP borderline elevated or increased *C decreased *All had B waves > 50 % of the time |
| Janny et al. (1981) | Case-control study | *16 patients (50%) *6 controls | 25 (2–56) | Continuous ICP monitoring (intracranial) | ICP, CSFP, SSP, pressure gradient between CSFP-SSP, Evans ratio, R | *ICP was elevated *R was elevated |
AMP pulse amplitude, C conductance of cerebrospinal fluid outflow, CBF cerebral blood flow, COP conductance of outflow pathways, CP closing pressure, CSF cerebrospinal fluid, CSFP cerebrospinal fluid pressure, CVP central venous pressure, DRCV direct retrograde cerebral venography, EL elasticity of the cerebrospinal fluid system, EPD epidural intracranial pressure, F cerebrospinal fluid formation rate, ICP intracranial pressure, IIH idiopathic intracranial hypertension, LBP lower breakpoint of the pulse amplitude, LIF lumbar infusion test, LP lumbar puncture, NA data not available, OP opening pressure, PDOP pressure difference across outflow pathways, PIS intrasinus pressure, PP plateau pressure, PVI pressure volume index, R cerebrospinal fluid outflow resistance, RAP index of cerebrospinal compensatory reserve, SSP sagittal sinus pressure, UBP upper breakpoint of the pulse amplitude, V volume of CSF removed
*Line break
Fig. 2The flowchart of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) patients
IIH patients compared to symptomatic controls
| Verified IIH | Symptomatic controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Females | 35 (89.7%) | 18 (90.0%) | 0.975 |
| Mean age in years | 30.2 ± 11.0 | 29 ± 11.6 | 0.808 |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2) | 36.0 ± 6.5 | 28.7 ± 6.5 | 0.001* |
| Mean OP (mmHg) | 29.5 ± 7.7 | 18.5 ± 9.7 | < 0.001* |
| Mean CSF protein count (mg/l) | 299.2 ± 142.9 | 252.1 ± 70.9 | 0.247 |
| Presenting symptoms | |||
| Headache | 31 (79.5%) | 18 (90.0%) | 0.308 |
| All visual symptoms | 33 (84.6%) | 13 (65.0%) | 0.085 |
| Tinnitus | 8 (20.5%) | 4 (20.0%) | 0.963 |
| Dizziness | 5 (12.8%) | 1 (5.0%) | 0.347 |
| Neuro-opthalmological findings at diagnosis | |||
| Optic nerve edema | |||
| Slight | 8 (20.5%) | 7 (35.0%) | < 0.001* |
| Unilateral | 5 (12.8%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| Bilateral | 26 (66.7%) | 3 (15.0%) | |
| Visual field defects | 20 (51.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.001* |
| Mean visual acuity | |||
| Right eye | 1.05±0.31 | 1.18±0.23 | 0.133 |
| Left eye | 1.09±0.33 | 1.18±0.28 | 0.332 |
| Neuroradiological findings at diagnosis | |||
| Presence of empty sella | |||
| No | 15 (42.9%) | 11 (61.1%) | 0.208 |
| Yes | 20 (57.1%) | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Flattened sclera | 7 (20.6%) | 2 (11.1%) | 0.390 |
| Increased CSF around optic nerve | 16 (47.1%) | 5 (27.8%) | 0.382 |
| Intraocular protrusion of optic nerve head | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0.962 |
| Increased tortuosity of optic nerve | 4 (11.8%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0.470 |
| Neuropsychiatric findings at diagnosis | |||
| Diagnosis of psychiatric disorder (ICD-10) | |||
| None | 22 (56.4%) | 15 (75.0%) | 0.431 |
| Bipolar disorder, type II (F31.8) | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Major depressive disorder (F33) | 14 (35.9%) | 5 (25.0%) | |
| Dissociation disorder (F44.9) | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
p Values of categorical variables from χ2 test and p values of continuous variables for ANOVA
BMI body mass index, CSF cerebrospinal fluid, OP opening pressure
Fig. 3Illustration of lumbar CSF pressure parameters. A Four minutes of the pressure measurement for a verified IIH case, with CSF pressure at 100 Hz in grey and pressure averaged over each cardiac cycle in black, illustrating slow wave activity. B A 12-s segment of the measurement, illustration cardiac-related pulse waves and respiratory waves. C Linear regression (grey line) of mean pressure and pulse amplitude data from the entire measurement (black dots), where RPPC is the slope of line and P0 is the intercept with the pressure axis (at ~ 16 mmHg). D Frequency spectrum for the same measurement, with the frequency window for slow waves shaded in dark grey and the window for respiratory waves shaded in light grey (the cardiac peak can be seen at the right edge of the graph, at around 1 Hz). E Mean pressure and cardiac amplitude (determined by frequency analysis) for each 6 second window of the 4 min, corresponding to the data used to determine one estimate of RAP index. F The cardiac amplitude data from panel E plotted against the corresponding mean pressure values; the linear correlation between them provides the RAP index estimate
Lumbar CSF pressure parameters for verified IIH cases and symptomatic controls
| Verified IIH cases | Symptomatic controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lumbar CSF pressure parameter | Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) | |
| Mean CSF pressure (mmHg) | 20.7 (7.75) | 13.0 (6.5) | |
| AMP (mmHg) | 4.5 (6.0) | 1.5 (2.6) | |
| SLOW (mmHg) | 1.0 (1.1) | 0.6 (0.9) | 0.109 |
| RESP (mmHg) | 0.8 (0.5) | 0.3 (0.2) | |
| RAP index | 0.82 (0.29) | 0.63 (0.58) | 0.288 |
| RPPC1 | 0.52 (0.26) | 0.40 (0.26) | 0.228 |
| P0 (mmHg)1 | 10.8 (4.4) | 7.3 (4.6) |
All p values from Mann–Whitney U tests comparing the two groups
Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level
IQR interquartile range
†Not normally distributed
1N = 30 IIH cases, N = 11 controls
Outcome for IIH patients after treatment
| IIH patients with psychiatric comorbidity | IIH patients without psychiatric comorbidity | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Neuro-ophthalmological outcome after all treatments | |||
| No papillaedema | 8 (50.0%) | 15 (78.9%) | 0.072 |
| Papillar atrophy or partial resolution of papillaedema | 8 (50.0%) | 4 (21.1%) | |
| Effect of acetaloamide on papillae and symptoms | |||
| Complete resolution of symptoms (with or without medication) | 5 (31.3%) | 12 (63.2%) | 0.060 |
| Slight or no improvement | 11 (68.8 %) | 7 (36.8%) | |
| Effect of conservative and surgical treatments combined on papillae and symptoms | |||
| Complete resolution of symptoms | 6 (37.5%) | 15 (78.9 %) | |
| Slight improvement | 10 (62.5%) | 4 (21.1%) | |
All p values from χ2 test
Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level
Lumbar CSF pressure parameters for verified IIH cases with favourable or unfavourable outcome
| Favourable outcome ( | Unfavourable outcome ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lumbar CSF pressure parameter | Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) | |
| Mean CSF pressure (mmHg) | 20.7 (8.0) | 18.7 (9.3) | 0.419 |
| AMP (mmHg) | 4.6 (5.6) | 3.0 (7.6) | 0.973 |
| SLOW (mmHg) | 1.0 (1.0) | 1.0 (1.1) | 0.727 |
| RESP (mmHg) | 0.9 (0.7) | 0.8 (0.4) | 0.987 |
| RAP index | 0.82 (0.27) | 0.79 (0.48) | 0.219 |
| RPPC1 | 0.53 (0.33) | 0.47 (0.22) | 0.366 |
| P0 (mmHg)1 | 9.6 (3.5) | 11.7 (5.1) | 0.228 |
All p values from Mann–Whitney U tests comparing the two groups
IQR interquartile range
*Not normally distributed
1N = 17 favourable outcome, N = 10 unfavourable outcome