Systematic review assesses how Alzheimer's co-pathology affects post-shunt outcomes in iNPH, suggesting tailored management may improve results.
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a potentially reversible condition characterized by gait, cognitive, and urinary impairment and treated with cerebrospinal fluid shunting, yet post-shunt outcomes vary. Coexisting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology may contribute to this variability. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether pre-shunt AD co-pathology influences post-shunt outcomes across distinct clinical domains and follow-up durations. Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies assessing the impact of pre-shunt AD co-pathology on post-shunt outcomes in iNPH. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they stratified patients by pre-shunt AD status (iNPH-AD vs. iNPH-nAD) and reported at least one post-shunt outcome compared between groups. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences across short- (<12 months) and long-term (≥12 months) follow-up. Sixteen studies (n = 1825 patients) were included in the systematic review, with nine (n = 428) eligible for meta-analysis. Pre-shunt AD co-pathology prevalence ranged from 23.9% to 67.6%, and post-shunt follow-up duration ranged from 3 to 60 months. No short-term group differences were observed for cognitive outcomes; however, a significant long-term group effect indicated poorer cognitive recovery in the iNPH-AD group. Gait measures showed short-term group differences favoring the iNPH-nAD group, with no group effects at long-term follow-up, whereas urinary outcomes showed no group differences at any follow-up. AD pathology is not a contraindication to shunting; rather, AD biomarker assessment should be incorporated into the pre-shunt workup, as it can enhance outcome prediction and support tailored postoperative management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patwardhan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: