4.7 Article

Practice guideline: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: Response to shunting and predictors of response Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 85, 期 23, 页码 2063-2071

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002193

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Academy of Neurology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 R-o (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).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据