Retrospective cohort study finds vision preservation after venous stenting in fulminant IIH patients, suggesting rapid outcomes.
Background: Fulminant idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a rare and vision-threatening variant of IIH, characterized by rapid visual deterioration and a high risk of irreversible blindness. Urgent intervention is required to prevent permanent optic nerve damage. Cerebral transverse venous stenting (CTVS) has emerged as an effective treatment for medically refractory IIH, but data on its use in fulminant cases remain limited. Methods: A retrospective consecutive cohort study was conducted at a tertiary center and included all patients with fulminant IIH diagnosed by modified Dandy criteria, with bilateral transverse sinus stenosis > 50% and a trans-stenotic pressure gradient ≥ 8 mmHg on venography. Before stenting, patients received high-dose acetazolamide (up to 3000 mg/day) and IV methylprednisolone (1000 mg/day × 3). Neuro-ophthalmic assessment included BCVA, Ishihara color vision, pupillary exam, disc edema grading, Humphrey visual fields, and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Follow-up occurred at baseline (admission), 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months. Results: Five young female patients underwent successful CTVS without peri- or post-procedural complications. Significant improvement in headache and stabilization or recovery of visual function were observed in all patients. OCT revealed early retinal nerve fiber layer thinning within one week, preceding clinical resolution of papilledema. Conclusions: Emergent CTVS appears to be a safe and effective vision-preserving procedure in fulminant IIH, offering rapid intracranial pressure reduction and early neuro-ophthalmologic improvement. OCT may serve as a useful early predictor of treatment success, supporting its role in post-procedural monitoring. Larger prospective studies are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kratz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: