Comparing open and closed cell stents in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: A comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

Abstract

Background: Open cell stents (OC) and closed cell stents (CC) each offer unique advantages and potential drawbacks in the context of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) treatment. We aim to investigate the safety and efficacy of using OC and CC for IIH.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included ≥4 patients with IIH treated by OC or CC. Primary outcomes were headache, visual acuity, and papilledema status before and after the procedure. Additionally, failure rate, minor complications, major complications, and total complications were assessed. Pooled analysis of the OC group and CC group were done separately and then compared.

Results: Twenty-four studies were included. Of these, 20 reported on OC and 6 reported on CC. Pooled analysis of failure rate was 8% (4%–12%) in OC and 5% (0%–11%) in CC. For headache improvement rate: 78% (70%–86%) in OC and 81% (66%–69%) in CC. For visual acuity improvement: 78% (65%–92%) in OC and 76% (29%–100%) in CC. For papilledema improvement: 88% (77%–98%) in OC and 82% (67%–98%) in CC. For minor complications: 0% (0%–1%) in OC and 0% (0%–2%) in CC. For major complications: 0% (0%–1%) in OC and 2% (0%–6%) in CC. Total complications: 0% (0%–1%) in OC and 2% (0%–6%) in CC.

Conclusion: Low failure and complication rates were found in both OC and CC, with no significant difference between them in effectiveness. The CC showed a slight but significant increase in major and total complications compared to the OC. Additionally, a subtle yet significantly lower failure rate was identified in the CC.

Keywords

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension endovascular stent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Friedman

Liu

Digre

. Revised diagnostic criteria for the pseudotumor cerebri syndrome in adults and children. Neurology 2013; 81: 1159–1165.

Wang

Bhatti

Danesh-Meyer

. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: athophysiology, diagnosis and management. J Clin Neurosci 2022; 95: 172–179.

Markey

Mollan

Jensen

, et al. Understanding idiopathic intracranial hypertension: mechanisms, management, and future directions. Lancet Neurol 2016; 15: 78–91.

Bilgin

Oliver

Cutsforth-Gregory

, et al. Zilver stent versus Carotid Wallstent for endovascular treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurointerv Surg 2023; 15: 1269–1273. DOI: 10.1136/jnis-2022-019659.

Garner

Aldridge

Wolfe

, et al. Quality of life, need for retreatment, and the re-equilibration phenomenon after venous sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurointerv Surg 2021; 13(1): 79–85.

Kalyvas

Neromyliotis

Koutsarnakis

, et al. A systematic review of surgical treatments of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). Neurosurg Rev 2021; 44(2): 773–792.

Mollan

Davies

Silver

, et al. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: consensus guidelines on management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018; 89(10): 1088–1100.

Yang

Raynald

Huo

, et al. The effects of pressure gradient on papilledema improvement after venous sinus stenting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Endovasc Ther. 2023; 15266028231175605. DOI: 10.1177/15266028231175605, Published online June 2.

El Mekabaty

Pearl

Moghekar

, et al. Mid-term assessment of transverse sinus stent patency in 104 patients treated for intracranial hypertension secondary to dural sinus stenosis. J Neurointerv Surg 2021; 13(2): 182–186.

10.

Asif

Craven

Siddiqui

, et al. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: 120-day clinical, radiological, and manometric outcomes after stent insertion into the dural venous sinus. J Neurosurg 2018; 129(3): 723–731.

11.

Faateh

Dakour-Aridi

Mathlouthi

, et al. Comparison of open- and closed-cell stent design outcomes after carotid artery stenting in the vascular quality initiative. J Vasc Surg 2021; 73(5): 1639–1648.

12.

Conti

Van Loo

Auricchio

, et al. Impact of carotid stent cell design on vessel scaffolding: a case study comparing experimental investigation and numerical simulations. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 397–406.

13.

Müller-Hülsbeck

Schäfer

Charalambous

, et al. Comparison of carotid stents: an in-vitro experiment focusing on stent design. J Endovasc Ther 2009; 16(2): 168–177.

14.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: 71.

15.

Ahmed

Wilkinson

Parker

, et al. Transverse sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a review of 52 patients and of model predictions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32(8): 1408–1414.

16.

Albuquerque

Dashti

, et al. Intracranial venous sinus stenting for benign intracranial hypertension: clinical indications, technique, and preliminary results. World Neurosurg 2011; 75(5-6): 648–652.

17.

Belachew

Baschung

Almiri

, et al. Casper ersus recise tent for the reatment of atients with diopathic ntracranial ypertension. Clin Neuroradiol 2021; 31(3): 853–862.

18.

Cappuzzo

Hess

Morrison

, et al. Transverse venous stenting for the treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, or pseudotumor cerebri. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 45(1): 11.

19.

El Mekabaty

Obuchowski

Luciano

, et al. Predictors for venous sinus stent retreatment in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurointerv Surg 2017; 9(12): 1228–1232.

20.

Fields

Javedani

Falardeau

, et al. Dural venous sinus angioplasty and stenting for the treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurointerv Surg 2013; 5(1): 62–68.

21.

Gorjian

Andrada

Sitko

, et al. Dural venous sinus stenting technique for idiopathic intracranial hypertension in patients with tortuous venous anatomy. Neurosurg Rev 2023; 46(1): 177.

22.

Hendrix

Whiting

Griessenauer

, et al. Neuro-ophthalmological evaluation including optical coherence tomography surrounding venous sinus stenting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension with papilledema: a case series. Neurosurg Rev 2022; 45(3): 2239–2247.

23.

Koovor

Lopez

Riley

, et al. Transverse venous sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: safety and feasibility. Neuroradiol J 2018; 31(5): 513–517.

24.

Levitt

Albuquerque

Ducruet

, et al. Venous sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension is not associated with cortical venous occlusion. J Neurointerv Surg 2016; 8(6): 594–595.

25.

Carlos Martinez-Gutierrez

Kole

Lopez-Rivera

, et al. Primary balloon angioplasty of venous Sinus stenosis in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Interv Neuroradiol 2023; 29(4): 358–362.

26.

Satti

Leishangthem

Spiotta

, et al. Dural venous sinus stenting for medically and surgically refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Interv Neuroradiol 2017; 23(2): 186–193.

27.

Schwarz

Al Balushi

Sundararajan

, et al. Management of idiopathic intracranial hypertension in children utilizing venous sinus stenting. Interv Neuroradiol 2021; 27(2): 257–265.

28.

Shields

LBE

Shields

Yao

, et al. Endovascular reatment for enous inus tenosis in diopathic ntracranial ypertension: n bservational tudy of linical ndications, urgical echnique, and ong-erm utcomes. World Neurosurg 2019; 121: 165–171.

29.

Yan

Rajah

Ding

, et al. Safety and efficacy of intravascular ultrasound as an adjunct to stenting for cerebral venous sinus stenosis-induced idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a pilot study. J Neurosurg 2019; 132(3): 749–754.

30.

Zehri

Lee

Kartchner

, et al. Efficacy of dural venous sinus stenting in treating idiopathic intracranial hypertension with acute vision loss. Neuroradiol J 2022; 35(1): 86–93.

31.

Matloob

Toma

Thompson

, et al. Effect of venous stenting on intracranial pressure in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Acta Neurochir 2017; 159(8): 1429–1437.

32.

Larson

Rinaldo

Chen

, et al. Reductions in bilateral transverse sinus pressure gradients with unilateral transverse venous sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurointerv Surg 2021; 13(2): 187–190.

33.

Lenck

Nouet

Shotar

, et al. Transverse sinus stenting without surgical repair in idiopathic CSF rhinorrhea associated with transverse sinus stenoses: a pilot study. J Neurosurg 2022; 136(6): 1745–1751.

34.

Bosiers

de Donato

Deloose

, et al.

Does free cell area influence the outcome in carotid artery stenting?

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 33(2): 135–141.

35.

Jim

Rubin

Landis

, et al. Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry evaluation of stent cell design on carotid artery stenting outcomes. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54(1): 71–79.

36.

Schillinger

Gschwendtner

Reimers

, et al.

Does carotid stent cell design matter?

Stroke 2008; 39(3): 905–909.

37.

Texakalidis

Giannopoulos

Kokkinidis

, et al. Effect of open- vs closed-cell stent design on periprocedural outcomes and restenosis after carotid artery stenting: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther 2018; 25(4): 523–533.

38.

Timaran

Rosero

Higuera

, et al. Randomized clinical trial of open-cell vs closed-cell stents for carotid stenting and effects of stent design on cerebral embolization. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54(5): 1310–1316.

39.

Lee

Chang

Luo

, et al. Influence of stenting with open-cell stents vs close-cell stents on the outcomes of patients with bilateral carotid stenosis. J Chin Med Assoc 2019; 82(1): 66–71.

40.

Kalyvas

Hughes

Koutsarnakis

, et al. Efficacy, complications and cost of surgical interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Neurochir 2017; 159(1): 33–49.

41.

Sinclair

Kuruvath

Sen

, et al. Is cerebrospinal fluid shunting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension worthwhile? a 10-year review. Cephalalgia 2011; 31(16): 1627–1633.

42.

Müller

Gregson

McCabe

DJH

, et al. Stent design, restenosis and recurrent stroke after carotid artery stenting in the international carotid stenting study. Stroke 2019; 50(11): 3013–3020.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.83 MB