normal pressure hydrocephalus: the evidence · 1 2 27 22 panagiotopoulos et al. acta neurochir...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Diagnosis and Treatment
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence
Gary S Gronseth, MD, FAANProfessor and Executive Vice Chair NeurologyUniversity of Kansas Medical Center
![Page 2: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Disclosures
• Chief Evidence-based Medicine Methodologist American Academy of Neurology
• Associate Editor for Level-of-evidence Reviews Neurology
• Editorial board Neurology Now
![Page 3: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Objectives
Understand the evidence relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of NPH and apply it to your practice.
Become more comfortable with interpreting effect sizes using a 2 x 2 table.
![Page 4: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Neurology 2015; 85:2063-2071
Clifford B. Saper, MD, PhD Annals of Neurology 2016; 79:165-166
My conclusions may be different from that of the AAN Guideline
![Page 5: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 6: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
History
• First described in 1965 by Hakim and Adams
• Condition characterized by • the clinical triad
• gait disturbance• urinary incontinence• memory impairment
• Normal CSF pressure on lumbar puncture • Radiologic finding of enlarged cerebral
ventricles• Improvement after ventricular shunting• Emphasized as a potentially reversible
cause of dementia
J Neurol Sci 1965;2:307–327.
![Page 7: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Idiopathic NPH
Unknown cause
Secondary NPH
Complication of subarachnoid
hemorrhage or infectious meningitis
Estimated prevalence of 5.5/100,000
Acta Neurol Scand 2008;118:48–53.
![Page 8: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Normal CSF flow
![Page 9: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Hydrocephalus
Non-communicating Communicating
![Page 10: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Psuedotumor Cerebri
“Increased flow resistance in arachnoid villi or increased dural sinus pressure”
![Page 11: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Different severities to the impedance to flow
Pv
Psas
Pv >>>> Psas
Pv >>> Psas
Pv >> Psas
Pv > Psas
Lesser degrees of impedance to flow: less elevation in pressure
![Page 12: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus is
Very Chronic Communicating Hydrocephalus
![Page 13: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Syndrome: Selective vulnerability
Gait apraxiaIncontinenceMemory problems
![Page 14: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 15: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Gait, Cognitive problems and Brain atrophy are frequent…
When is it NPH?
The diagnostic dilemma
![Page 16: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
What is a good Reference Standard?
For patients with suspected NPH are there clinical or laboratory features that identify patients who are more likely to improve with shunting?
Improvement with shunting
![Page 18: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Literature Search
Inclusion criteria:
• Cohort studies
• Case-control studies
• Case series
• English-language publications
Exclusion criteria:
• Case reports, editorials, meta-analyses, review articles, duplicative reports
• Examined only secondary NPH
• <10 patients with iNPH/suspected iNPH
• Used no comparison group
• Followed patients for response to therapy for <3 months
440 abstracts
36 articles
Searched: Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases from 19802012; updated search of Medline and Cochrane 2012 to November 2013
Risk of Bias Rated: Class I to Class IV
![Page 19: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Internal Validity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Risk of Bias
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
![Page 20: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Effect Size
Distribution of Measured Effect Sizes by
Class of Study (box & whisker)
No Effect
![Page 21: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Class I: Masked Prospective Cohort Study
Better Not Better
Pos
Neg
Recruit Pts
w/ suspected
NPH
Test Shunt Evaluate Response
![Page 22: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Patient recruitment
“In all studies, the authors considered patients candidates for inclusion if they had all or part of the clinical triad, brain imaging studies demonstrating ventriculomegaly, and no history of factors that could cause secondary hydrocephalus.”
![Page 23: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 24: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:562–568.
![Page 25: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Neurosurgery 2005;57(Suppl 3):S4–16.
Suspected NPH Patients recruited• Mandatory criteria (115)
• Gait disturbance at onset
• Mild to moderate cognitive impairment at onset or after gait disturbance
• Symmetrical quadri-ventricular enlargement
• Additional criteria for “Typical NPH” (67)
• Typical gait disturbance
• MMSE > 21, no aphasia or agnosia
• No infarcts on MRI
![Page 26: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
OutcomeMeasures: iNPH Scale
• Gait10 meter walk test
• Neuropsychology• Grooved Pegboard test
• Stroop Test
• Balanceordinal scale I to VII
• ContinenceOrdinal scale I to VI
Acta Neurol Scand 2012;126:229–37.
Total Score
2xGait + Neuropsych + Balance + Continence5
![Page 27: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
CSF Tap Test• Baseline testing 24 hours before LP
• 50 ml of CSF removed at 09:00h
• Three hours after drainage baseline testing repeated
• Response: mean of the percent change in all motor and psychometric tests compared with baseline
• 5% considered a positive test
![Page 28: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Shunt
• Adjustable ventriculoperitoneal shunt (Codman & Shurtleff)
• Opening pressure set to 120 mm H2O.
• Patients re-examined 1 month to ascertain the patency of the shunts:
• examination of gait
• CT scan or MRI
• + shunt function test
![Page 29: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Primary Outcomes
• Differences between preoperative and 12 month scores on the iNPH Scale and mRS.
• Improvement• Increase on iNPH Scale of > 5 points
• Decrease in mRS of >1
![Page 30: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Results
Parameter label Result
Sensitivity 52%
Specificity 59%
Positive PV 88%
Negative PV 18%
“[The] CSF TT can be used for selecting patients for shunt
surgery but not for excluding patients from treatment.”
![Page 31: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“[The] CSF TT can be used for selecting patients for shunt surgery but not for excluding patients from treatment.”
• Patients are either selected (offered surgery) or excluded (not offered surgery)
• If the CSF TT is positive, offer surgery.
• If the CSF TT is negative,do not not offer surgery.
• Why do a CSF TT?
offer surgery.
?
![Page 32: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Class I: Masked Prospective Cohort Study
Better Not Better
Pos
Neg
Recruit Pts
w/ suspected
NPH
Tap Test Shunt Evaluate Response
51 7
41 10
142 115
![Page 33: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Raw Numbers
Shunt Response
Tap Test Yes No All
Positive 51 7 58
Negative 47 10 57
Total 98 17 115
![Page 34: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Margins
Shunt Response
Tap Test Yes No
Positive 51 7 50%
Negative 47 10 50%
Total 98 17 100%
![Page 35: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Margins
Shunt Response
Tap Test Yes No
Positive 51 7 58
Negative 47 10 57
Total 85% 15% 100%
![Page 36: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Prognostic Perspective
Shunt Response
Tap Test Yes No All
Positive 88% 12% 100%
Negative 82% 18% 100%
Total 85% 15% 100%
PPV
NPV
Risk Difference:
6% more of the patients with a
positive TT improved with shunting
(95% CI -8% to 19%)
![Page 37: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Pos Tap Test
Neg Tap Test
Improved
Not Improved
Positive PV 88%
Negative PV 18%
Risk
Difference
![Page 38: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Shunt Response by Tap Test:
Diagnostic Perspective
Shunt Response
Tap Test Yes No All
Positive 52% 41% 50%
Negative 48% 59% 50%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Sensitivity
Specificity
Youden’s Index:
11% more of the patients who improved
with shunting had a positive TT
(95% CI -14% to 33%)
![Page 39: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Improved Not Improved
Neg Tap Test
Pos Tap Test
Sensitivity 52%
Specificity 59%
Youden’s
Index
![Page 40: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Diagnostic Accuracy: Tap Test
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Sen
siti
vity
Specificity
Tap test
Indifference
![Page 41: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
CSF tap test and outcomes
Change in iNPH scale score after 12 months
Ch
ange
in iN
PH
scal
e sc
ore
aft
er t
ap t
est
![Page 42: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Improvement on the CSF TT is probably NOT useful for
identifying patients who are more likely to respond to shunting
Risk Difference:
6% more of the patients with a
positive TT improved with shunting
(95% CI -8% to 19%)
Improvement:
Positive TT: 88%
Negative TT: 82%
The probability of responding to the shunt is essentially
the same whether or not the Tap Test is positive
![Page 43: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
CSF Tap Test: All Studies
Risk Difference with 95% Confidence intervals
Patients with Pos TT do betterPatients with Neg TT do better
![Page 44: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Bayesian Meta-analysis
Risk Difference with 95% Confidence intervals
Patients with Pos TT do betterPatients with Neg TT do better
![Page 45: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Conclusion
In patients with suspected iNPH, the TT probably does not identify patients who are more likely to respond to shunting.
Different from AAN conclusion
![Page 46: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 47: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
One Class III Study: Un-masked
Prospective Cohort Study
Better Not Better
Pos
Neg
Recruit Pts
w/ suspected
NPH
ELD Shunt Evaluate Response
16 3
1 2
27 22
Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958
![Page 48: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Permanent improvement after shunt by
permanent improvement after ELD
![Page 49: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Shunt Response by ELD:
Conclusion
Parameter label Result
Sensitivity 94%
Specificity 40%
Positive PV 84%
Negative PV 67%
Risk difference 51% (0.1% to 80%)
Youden’s Index 34% (-1% to 71%)
![Page 50: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Pos ELD Test
Neg ELD Test
Improved
Not Improved
Positive PV 84%
Negative PV 67%
Risk
Difference
![Page 51: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Diagnostic Accuracy: TT and ELD
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Sen
siti
vity
Specificity
Tap test
ELD
Indifference
![Page 52: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Conclusion (Single Class III study, large magnitude of effect)
In patients with suspected iNPH, improvement after ELD might identify patients more likely to respond to shunting.
Different from AAN
![Page 53: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 54: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Radionuclide Cisternography
Poor Specificity: Bergstrand et al. Radionuclide cisternography and computed
tomography in 30 healthy volunteers. Neuroradiology. 1986;28(2):154-60.
40% of Healthy Controls had abnormal studies
![Page 55: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Conclusion (Only Class IV studies)
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether patients with suspected iNPH and persistent ventricular stasis on radioisotope cisternography would respond to shunting.
![Page 56: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 57: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Other CSF parameters
CSF Pressure
CSF pressure wave amplitude
B-waves: slow rhythmic oscillations in intracranial pressure
RO: CSF outflow resistance during infusion test
MRI Aqueduct CSF Flow
B Waves
![Page 58: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Class I study: Foss et al. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2007;23:47–54.
Change in CSF pressure with heart beat
![Page 59: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Diagnostic Accuracy CSF Parameters
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Sen
siti
vity
Specificity
Tap test
ELD
CSF puls hyper
Pooled Ro
Pooled MRI aq
Indifference
![Page 60: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other CSF parameters
• Clinical features
• Treatment
![Page 61: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Typical vs Questionable NPH
• The diagnostic accuracy of both tests was the same for patients with typical and “questionable” iNPH.
• The outcome after shunting was the same in both typical and “questionable” groups.
Mandatory criteria• Gait disturbance at onset• Mild to moderate cognitive impairment
at onset or after gait disturbance• Symmetrical quadri-ventricular
enlargement J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:562–568.
![Page 62: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Co-morbidities (1 Class III study)Kiefer M, Eymann R, Steudel WI. Outcome predictors for normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2006;96:364367
1 point 2 points 3 points
Vascular risk factors Hypertension Diabetes mellitus
Peripheral vascular occlusionAortofemoral bypass; stent; internal carotid artery stenosis
Peripheral vascular occlusion
Cerebrovascular disease Posterior circulation insufficiencyVascular encephalopathy;TIA; RIND
Cerebral infarct
HeartArrhythmia; valvular disease; heart failure (coronal); stent; aortocoronary bypass;infarction
Overall, 66% of patients with iNPH had a good response, but 83% of those with low comorbidity index score had a good response
![Page 63: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Overview
• Background• History
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis• CSF Tap Test
• External Lumbar Drain
• Radionuclide Cisternography
• Other
• Treatment
![Page 64: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Question
For patients with iNPH
does shunting
compared to no shunting
improve outcomesGait
Continence
Cognition
![Page 65: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Allocate
Recruit
Follow
Rx No Rx
Wo
rse Better
Control
Blind
Retain
Randomize
Primary Outcome
Natural HistoryRegression to the mean
Selection bias
Placebo effectPerformance biasMeasurement bias
Reporting Bias
Attrition bias
Assess40%
60%
10%
90%
![Page 66: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Controlled Studies of the
Effectiveness of Shunting
Study Allocation Masking Follow-up
(months)
Outcome
Kahlon
2007
Non-
random
Open
Label
6 Improved
Gait %
Razay
2009
Non-
random
Open
Label
3-4 No walking
Aid %
Kazui
2015
Random Open
Label
3 Improved
mRankin %
Three Class III Studies
![Page 67: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Improved
Shunt Yes No All
Yes 65% 35% 100%
No 5% 95% 100%
PPV
NPV
Risk Difference:
60% more of the patients with a
shunt improved.
(95% CI 43% to 73%)
Improvement by Treatment Status: SIPHONI 2
![Page 68: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Shunt
No Shunt
Improved
Not Improved
Positive PV 65%
Negative PV 95%
Risk
Difference
![Page 69: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Comparative studies of shunting in iNPH
Risk Difference of Improvement
Favors ShuntingFavors No Shunting
![Page 70: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Evidence Synthesis Model: Random Effects Scale: Linear Effect values less than 0 favor Comparator
0 Population patients with iNPH,
2 Intervention shunting
-1 Comparator no shunting
1 Outcome improving function
Important effect size 0.100
Unimportant effect size 0.010
Include Study (Author Year) Class Indirectness Effect LCL UCL Sig. Dose
Response
Bias favors Consist. Pub. Bias
(p)
1 Kahlon 2007 III Minor 0.595 0.351 0.748
1 Razay 2009 III Minor 0.274 -0.063 0.537
1 SINPHONI 2015 III Minor 0.608 0.432 0.730
Summary (Rand. Effects) 3; III Minor 0.532 0.364 0.700 NC NC Isq: 50 NA
Conclusion
(moderate confidence)
For patients with iNPH, shunting is probably more effective than no
shunting in improving function
Sort
Insert Row
Forest PlotSetup
Funnel Plot
Bubble Plot
![Page 71: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Bayesian Synthesis of comparative studies of shunting in iNPH
Risk Difference of Improvement
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Kahlon 2007
Razay 2009
SINPHONI 2015
Summary
Favors ShuntingFavors No Shunting
![Page 72: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Benefits vs Risk
• Short-lived improvement?• Decreased response to shunting after 6 months
• Fewer than half of patients were considered to be improved in iNPH symptoms after 18 months
• Complications
![Page 73: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
To Shunt or Not to Shunt
Benefits Risks
Unknown Magnitude and duration of benefit
Complications: Subdural
![Page 74: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Conclusions
Do not consider the diagnosis in a patient without
both clinical and radiographic features consistent
with NPH
Do not rely on a CSF tap test for the diagnosis
An external lumbar drain might identify patients
more likely to respond to shunting
Shunting in the appropriately selected patient is
probably beneficial—the magnitude and duration of
the benefit is unknown
Shunting increases the risk of subdural hematoma
We need a well done randomized, masked trial
![Page 75: Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: The Evidence · 1 2 27 22 Panagiotopoulos et al. Acta Neurochir 2005;147:953–958. Permanent improvement after shunt by permanent improvement after](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051902/5ff10610737d5b33903b371a/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Diagnosis and Treatment
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus:
The Evidence
Gary S Gronseth, MD, FAANProfessor and Executive Vice Chair NeurologyUniversity of Kansas