Correspondence: When an article is eligible for submission of
Correspondence, a link to the response form is available within the full-text
article. You must be a
current subscriber who has activated the online portion of your subscription
in order to send a Correspondence. Any reader can read published
Correspondence.
Correspondence to:
ARTICLES:
J. O. King, P. J. Mitchell, K. R. Thomson, and B. M. Tress
Manometry combined with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension
Neurology 2002; 58: 26-30
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
We thank Quattrone et al. for their comments about our article on
manometry combined with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial
hypertension. [1] Our patients all had idiopathic intracranial
hypertension (IIH) which is a different condition to isolated intracranial
hypertension without papilledema. There remains however a valid question
as to the cause of the functional obstruction to cerebral venous outflow
at the level of the transverse sinuses (TS). In our first paper we
considered mural thrombus, in some cases forming on arachnoidal
granulations, the likely cause. [2] However in IIH where cerebral
venography typically shows smooth bilateral tapered narrowing rather than
focal sessile lesions, we now think that the changes are all due to
stretching of the walls of the TS, given the immediate relief of elevated
venous sinus pressures by lowering intracranial pressure with cervical
puncture.
The case report of successful stenting of one TS in a patient with
IIH, [5] confirmed our findings of a pressure drop across the TS with
raised pressures at the level of the torcula. The stent in the TS
abolished the venous hypertension and after 3 weeks the opening pressure
at lumbar puncture was normal. The stent opened the lumen of the TS,
dropped the pressure in the superior sagittal sinus and allowed passive
absorption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), thereby lowering the intracranial
pressure. Lowering the intracranial pressure by C1-2 puncture has the same
effect, which leads us to consider that the TS stenosis is caused by
extrinsic pressure on the walls of the TS rather than by intraluminal
processes such as mural thrombus. This argument begs the question as to
what flattens the walls of the TS. We believe there is some process in IIH
involving the arachnoidal granulations which impairs CSF absorption and
initiates the rise in intracranial pressure.
Magnetic resonance venography is recognized to be sensitive to
altered flow, but less accurate in assessing the anatomy of the venous
sinuses. We consider conventional venography to be superior to MRV in
displaying anatomical detail and at this stage the smooth bilateral
narrowing of the TS in IIH is unlikely to be due to mural thrombus.
Dr Lee has drawn attention to the uncertain place of MRV in IIH. In
typical cases of IIH we found the MRV lacked adequate definition in the TS
and flow voids could easily be misinterpreted as sinus thrombosis. MRV and
conventional cerebral venograms were performed in patients with IIH and
most patients showed apparent narrowing of the TS on MRV however T2 and T1
weighted MRI excluded thromboses and arachnoidal granulations. We did not
perform pre- and post- cervical puncture MRV but would be surprised if
this technique would be helpful because conventional venography did not
shown striking changes despite lowering of pressures in the superior
sagittal sinus and proximal TS after cervical puncture.
Drs. Higgins, Nicholas and Professor Pickard question our conclusion
that the venous outflow obstruction in IIH is due to partial collapse of
the walls of the transverse sinuses from raised intracranial pressure as a
secondary phenomonen. By lowering intracranial pressure we found the
pressure gradient in the transverse sinuses largely disappeared. It is
reasonable to assume that the cross-sectional area of the TS increased
when the extrinsic compression was reduced. This would have the same
effect as enlarging the internal dimensions by placement of a stent.
Conventional venograms in most instances of IIH show smooth tapered
narrowing of the TS bilaterally. Although we originally felt this could be
due to mural thrombus, it seems unlikely that such a symmetrical
appearance could result from acute, organized or recanalised clot. If the
process were some form of sclerosis of the TS one would not expect
lowering the intracranial pressure to have any significant effect on the
venous hypertension.
Our hypothesis requires a subclinical elevation of intracranial
pressure, possibly due to some change in permeability of arachnoidal villi
to CSF. This could be produced by an as yet unidentified hormone in
overweight females or by drugs such as minocycline. Over a period of a few
months in susceptible individuals the raised intracranial pressure would
start to flatten the walls of the TS and push up the venous pressure in
the SSS and proximal TS, further impairing CSF absorption and sharply
elevating intracranial pressure. Stenting one TS would allow venous
pressure to fall but would the intracranial pressure fall to normal as
happened in the case reported by Higgins et al? [3] The early value of
stenting the TS in IIH has been confirmed in a further four cases [4] and
the procedure offers a new treatment option. The follow-up results are
awaited, however these cases suggest that cerebral venography and
manometry should be done routinely in IIH.
References:
1. King JO, Mitchell PR, Thomson KR, Tress BM. Manometry combined
with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurology
2002;58:26-30.
2. King JO, Mitchell PR, Thomson KR, Tress BM. Cerebral venography
and manometry in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurology
1995;45:2224-2228
4. Owler BK, Parker G, Dunn V, Halmagyi GM, McDowell D. Besser M.
Pseudotumor cerebri: Treatment with venous sinus stenting. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2002;72(Suppl):A62.
5. Higgins JN, Owler BK, Cousins C, et al. Venous sinus stenting for
refractory benign intracranial hypertension. Lancet 2002;359:228-230.
Manometry combined with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension
7 June 2002
J D Pickard Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge UK, J Nicholas and P Higgins
jdsecretary{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk J D Pickard, et al.
We have read with great interest the paper by King et al. [1] but
would disagree with their conclusions and with the enthusiasm with which
they were greeted in the accompanying editorial. [2] We also have found
pressure gradients across stenoses in the lateral sinuses in patients with
apparently idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Furthermore we have
dilated one of these stenoses with a stent thereby reducing the pressure
gradient which resulted in almost complete resolution of symptoms. [3]
Hence we would strongly support the original King et al. hypothesis that
venous outflow obstruction is the primary cause of idiopathic intracranial
hypotension at least in some cases.
There is no doubt that the transverse sinuses may collapse in
response to raised intracranial pressure and that in this situation
pressure gradients will be detected along them. Moreover, these gradients
will resolve if intracranial pressure is reduced. [4] Equally, there is
narrowing or occlusion of the intracranial venous sinuses can cause no
doubt that raised intracranial pressure. With reference
to this paper, it is important to reiterate that raised intracranial
pressure in patients with unequivocal cerebral venous thrombosis is
relieved by CSF diversion. [1] Where there is stenosis or thrombosis of
the sagittal or transverse sinuses, a secondary rise in cerebral venous
pressure must be accompanied by an even greater rise in CSF pressure if
CSF absorption is to continue. Where cerebral venous pressure or
intracranial pressure is raised, there will be an autoregulatory
vasodilatation to maintain cerebral blood flow constant in the otherwise
healthy brain. If CSF is diverted and intracranial pressure reduced, such
cerebral vasodilatation will reverse very likely with a fall in cerebral
venous pressure (see 5 for a discussion of pressure distribution along the
cerebral venous outflow). A fall in cerebral venous pressure in response
to a withdrawal of cerebrospinal fluid, therefore, does not exclude venous
outflow obstruction as the cause of raised intracranial pressure.
Another question, not explored, is any secondary effect of raised
intracranial pressure on the venous sinuses when intracranial hypertension
is due to venous sinus obstructions, especially at points where the
sinuses are known to be compressible. In the cranial cavity the raised
intracranial pressure itself will act as a force on the sinus wall
resisting any expansion that might mitigate the obstructing lesion.
Reducing intracranial pressure by removing CSF would alter this transmural
gradient and might allow the sinus to expand. If this expansion were
sufficient, then the intrasinus pressure gradients across the stenotic
lesions would fall acutely in the manner recorded by King et al. One can
speculate further that following this acute response equilibrium will be
restored at a rate depending on the degree of "primary" sinus stenosis and
the compliance of the sinus wall under strain from rising intracranial
pressure - paralleling the clinical effects of CSF withdrawal.
Whatever the mechanism operating here, we suggest that if pressure
gradients along the transverse sinuses were always secondary to idiopathic
intracranial hypertension then dilating one of these stenotic areas would
not have caused the intracranial pressure to fall, nor effected the
clinical
improvement we observed in our reported case. We would applaud King et
al. pioneering observations in 1995, but are anxious that a
misinterpretation of his most recent results, unquestioned in your
editorial, will stall a line of research that may yet revolutionize our
understanding of this condition.
References:
1. King JO, Mitchell PJ, Thomson KR, Tress BM. Manometry combined
with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurology
2002; 58:26-30.
2. Corbett JJ, Digre K. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension; an
answer to, "the chicken or the egg?" Neurology 2002; 58: 5-6.
King et al. [1] reported the results of cerebral venous sinus
manometry and cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension
(IIH). They reported cerebral venous sinus hypertension in the superior
sagittal and proximal transverse sinuses that was reversed by reducing
intracranial pressure. They concluded that the elevated intracranial
pressure and not the other way around caused compression of the dural
walls of the transverse sinus. Lee and Brazis [2] previously performed a
prospective study to evaluate for the presence or absence of dural sinus
thrombosis using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR venography of the
brain in 22 consecutive young, overweight women patients with typical IIH.
None of the 22 MR imaging and MR venography studies showed venous sinus
thrombosis and they concluded that MR venography might not add
significantly to the evaluation of typical IIH. I still order cranial
MRI/MRV however in atypical IIH cases (e.g., male, thin or elderly
patients).
I have been impressed however by the number of MRV studies in IIH
that have shown findings that we have in the past interpreted as being
suggestive of venous sinus stenosis or flow related turbulence at the
level of the distal transverse sinus. Some of these patients underwent
standard catheter venography and a few were even considered for possible
stenting. Thus, the MRV studies in these patients actually confounded the
evaluation of their IIH. My questions for the authors are as follows:
1. Did any of their patients undergo MRV in addition to cranial MRI
and if so did these MRVs show anything that might have been misinterpreted
as venous sinus thrombosis or obstruction at the distal transverse sinus?
2. Do the authors believe that performing an MRV in typical IIH might
be misleading in the management of typical IIH in cases with flow related
abnormalities (but not true obstruction) at the distal transverse sinus?
3. Would pre- and post-lumbar puncture MRV be able to demonstrate the
reversibility of flow related signal abnormalities at this level.
This work is fascinating and I commend the authors for their efforts
in this area.
References:
1. King JO, Mitchell PJ, Thompson KR, Tress BM. Manometry combined
with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurology
2002;58:26-30.
2. Lee AG, Brazis PW. Magnetic resonance venography in idiopathic
pseudotumor cerebri. J Neuro-ophthalmology 2000;20: 12-13.
Manometry combined with cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension
7 June 2002
A Quattrone Policlinico universitario Cantanzano Italy, F Bono and K Pardatscher
We read with interest the article by King et al. [1] We agree that
there is a relationship between intracranial pressure and sinus venous
pressure. We do, however, have concerns over the authors' conclusion that
increased cerebral venous pressure found in most patients with isolated
intracranial hypertension (IIH) is due to a functional obstruction
(collapse of the walls) of the transverse sinuses (TS) by raised
intracranial pressure and not due to a primary obstructive process in the
TS.
We recently demonstrated on MR venography (MRV) that a number of
subjects with IIH with or without papilledema had flowing abnormalities of
both transverse sinuses highly suggestive of cerebral venous thrombosis.
[2,3] It is noteworthy that the flowing abnormalities seen on MRV in IIH
occurred mainly in the distal portion of the TS. [2, 3] This observation
was confirmed by King et al. [1] who showed a pressure gradient between
the proximal and distal part of the TS in patients with IIH. These
findings suggest there must be some anatomical reason that makes the
distal part of the transverse sinus the preferential site for developing
an obstructive process. Since arachnoidal granulations typically occur in
the distal portion of the TS, [4] it is reasonable to hypothesize that in
some individuals large arachnoid granulations could produce relative
luminal compromise and lead to a disturbed flow with a pressure gradient
or an increased risk of venous thrombosis. Taken together, these data
indicate that obstruction of the distal portion of one or both TS, which
occurs in many patients with IIH, [2, 3, 5] is probably due to an
intraluminal process (prominent arachnoidal granulations, thrombus
forming on arachnoidal granulations, or venous thrombosis) rather than to
an extrinsic cause (i.e. raised intracranial pressure), which should
collapse the walls of the entire TS and not just the walls of the distal
portion. Consistent with this hypothesis, a recent paper [5] described a
patient with IIH who showed, on venography and manometry, a partial
obstruction of the distal portion of both TS with raised pressure proximal
to the obstruction. Dilatation of one of the transverse sinuses with a
stent reduced both the pressure gradient and CSF opening pressure with
striking symptomatic improvement, suggesting a causal relationship between
venous outflow obstruction and IIH. Finally, we agree with King et al. [1]
that raised intracranial pressure could make the obstruction worse by
collapsing the walls of the sinus, thus further exacerbating both venous
hypertension and CSF pressure.
References:
1. King JO, Mitchell PJ, Thomson KR, et al. Manometry combined with
cervical puncture in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurology
2002;58:26-30.
2. Quattrone A, Gambardella A, Carbone AM, et al. A hypofibrinolytic
state in overweight patients with cerebral venous thrombosis and isolated
intracranila hypertension. J. Neurol 1999;246:1086-1089.
3. Quattrone A, Bono F, Oliveri RL, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis
and isolated intracranial hypertension without papilledema in CDH.
Neurology 2001;57:31-36.
4. Leach JL, Jones BV, Tomsick TA, et al. Normal appearance of
arachnoid granulations on contrast-enhanced CT and MR of the brain :
differentiation from dural sinus disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
1996;17:1523-1532.
5. Higgins JN, Owler BK, Cousins C, et al. Venous sinus stenting for
refractory benign intracranial hypertension. Lancet 2002; 359:228-230.