Neuropsychological assessments and cognitive profile mostly associated with shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients: diagnostic and predictive parameters and practical implications.
Accuracy
Cognitive
Idiopathic
Normal pressure hydrocephalus
Sensitivity
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
28
03
2021
accepted:
16
08
2021
pubmed:
5
9
2021
medline:
24
11
2021
entrez:
4
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cognitive decline is a well-documented feature of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) that can be reversible following cerebrospinal fluid tap tests (CSF-TT). The current gold standard for selecting iNPH patients for shunt surgery is measurable improvement in gait tests following CSF-TT. However, the diagnostic significance and predictive role of pre-surgical cognitive evaluations in probable iNPH patients is still controversial. To find the neuropsychological (NPSY) tests and cognitive aspects mostly associated with shunt surgery in iNPH. A retrospective comparison between probable iNPH patients who, after undergoing CSF-TT with gait and cognitive evaluations, ended up receiving a shunt (group 1) and probable iNPH patients who ended up with no shunt surgery (group 2). Differences in the diagnostic and predictive results of variety of NPSY tests at baseline, pre-CSF-TT, and post-CSF-TT were used for thorough statistical calculations. A total of 147 patients with probable iNPH were included. Of those, 58 (39.45%, group 1) patients underwent shunt surgery, while 89 (60.55%, group 2) did not. For the vast majority of the cognitive tests used, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups at baseline (pre-CSF-TT). Following CSF-TT, the "naming" component of the Cognistat test was the only single test to show statically significant difference in improvement between the two groups. Combining at least two tests led to increased levels of accuracy and specificity; however, the sensitivity remained < 50. The only two combinations that were associated with sensitivity ≥ 70 were either any improvement in the Cognistat test (p = 0.627) or any improvement in either its naming, memory, or judgment components (p = 0.015). Cognitive tests, even when combined to cover several cognitive aspects, are not sensitive enough to act as an independent reliable diagnostic and predictive tool, especially when relying on their scores as baseline. In order to avoid cumbersome and unnecessary tests to our patients and to reduce the number of patients who are denied proper treatment due to misdiagnosis, we recommend to use NPSY tests that examine the cognitive aspects of naming and memory, in addition to 2-3 tests for executive functions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cognitive decline is a well-documented feature of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) that can be reversible following cerebrospinal fluid tap tests (CSF-TT). The current gold standard for selecting iNPH patients for shunt surgery is measurable improvement in gait tests following CSF-TT. However, the diagnostic significance and predictive role of pre-surgical cognitive evaluations in probable iNPH patients is still controversial.
PURPOSE
To find the neuropsychological (NPSY) tests and cognitive aspects mostly associated with shunt surgery in iNPH.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A retrospective comparison between probable iNPH patients who, after undergoing CSF-TT with gait and cognitive evaluations, ended up receiving a shunt (group 1) and probable iNPH patients who ended up with no shunt surgery (group 2). Differences in the diagnostic and predictive results of variety of NPSY tests at baseline, pre-CSF-TT, and post-CSF-TT were used for thorough statistical calculations.
RESULTS
A total of 147 patients with probable iNPH were included. Of those, 58 (39.45%, group 1) patients underwent shunt surgery, while 89 (60.55%, group 2) did not. For the vast majority of the cognitive tests used, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups at baseline (pre-CSF-TT). Following CSF-TT, the "naming" component of the Cognistat test was the only single test to show statically significant difference in improvement between the two groups. Combining at least two tests led to increased levels of accuracy and specificity; however, the sensitivity remained < 50. The only two combinations that were associated with sensitivity ≥ 70 were either any improvement in the Cognistat test (p = 0.627) or any improvement in either its naming, memory, or judgment components (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSION
Cognitive tests, even when combined to cover several cognitive aspects, are not sensitive enough to act as an independent reliable diagnostic and predictive tool, especially when relying on their scores as baseline. In order to avoid cumbersome and unnecessary tests to our patients and to reduce the number of patients who are denied proper treatment due to misdiagnosis, we recommend to use NPSY tests that examine the cognitive aspects of naming and memory, in addition to 2-3 tests for executive functions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34480204
doi: 10.1007/s00701-021-04976-z
pii: 10.1007/s00701-021-04976-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3373-3386Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Allali G, Laidet M, Armand S, Momjian S, Marques B, Saj A, Assal F (2017) A combined cognitive and gait quantification to identify normal pressure hydrocephalus from its mimics: the Geneva’s protocol. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 160:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.06.001
pubmed: 28605723
Bakar EE, Bakar B (2010) Neuropsychological assessment of adult patients with shunted hydrocephalus. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47:191–198. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2010.47.3.191
doi: 10.3340/jkns.2010.47.3.191
pubmed: 20379471
pmcid: 2851080
Beber BC, Chaves MLF (2014) The basis and applications of the action fluency and action naming tasks. Dement Neuropsychol 8:47–57. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-57642014dn81000008
doi: 10.1590/s1980-57642014dn81000008
pubmed: 29213879
pmcid: 5619448
Behrens A, Elgh E, Leijon G, Kristensen B, Eklund A, Malm J (2019) The computerized general neuropsychological INPH test revealed improvement in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus after shunt surgery. J Neurosurg:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.10.Jns18701
Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ, Egeler-Peerdeman SM, Hanlo PW, Wurzer JA, Hermans J (1997) Dutch normal pressure hydrocephalus study: baseline characteristics with emphasis on clinical findings. Eur J Neurol 4:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.1997.tb00297.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.1997.tb00297.x
pubmed: 24283820
Bugalho P, Alves L, Miguel R, Ribeiro O (2014) Profile of cognitive dysfunction and relation with gait disturbance in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 118:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.01.006
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.01.006
pubmed: 24529236
Burnett MG, Sonnad SS, Stein SC (2006) Screening tests for normal-pressure hydrocephalus: sensitivity, specificity, and cost. J Neurosurg 105:823–829. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2006.105.6.823
doi: 10.3171/jns.2006.105.6.823
pubmed: 17405251
Davis C, Heidler-Gary J, Gottesman RF, Crinion J, Newhart M, Moghekar A, Soloman D, Rigamonti D, Cloutman L, Hillis AE (2010) Action versus animal naming fluency in subcortical dementia, frontal dementias, and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurocase 16:259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790903456183
doi: 10.1080/13554790903456183
pubmed: 20104387
pmcid: 4059509
Duinkerke A, Williams MA, Rigamonti D, Hillis AE (2004) Cognitive recovery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus after shunt. Cogn Behav Neurol 17:179–184. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnn.0000124916.16017.6a
doi: 10.1097/01.wnn.0000124916.16017.6a
pubmed: 15536306
Gallagher RM, Marquez J, Osmotherly P (2018) Cognitive and upper limb symptom changes from a tap test in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 174:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.09.015
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.09.015
pubmed: 30219624
Gleichgerrcht E, Cervio A, Salvat J, Loffredo AR, Vita L, Roca M, Torralva T, Manes F (2009) Executive function improvement in normal pressure hydrocephalus following shunt surgery. Behav Neurol 21:181–185. https://doi.org/10.3233/ben-2009-0249
doi: 10.3233/ben-2009-0249
pubmed: 19996515
pmcid: 5444271
Golomb J, Wisoff J, Miller DC, Boksay I, Kluger A, Weiner H, Salton J, Graves W (2000) Alzheimer’s disease comorbidity in normal pressure hydrocephalus: prevalence and shunt response. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 68:778–781. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.68.6.778
doi: 10.1136/jnnp.68.6.778
pubmed: 10811706
pmcid: 1736969
Graff-Radford NR, Godersky JC, Jones MP (1989) Variables predicting surgical outcome in symptomatic hydrocephalus in the elderly. Neurology 39:1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.39.12.1601
doi: 10.1212/wnl.39.12.1601
pubmed: 2586777
Hakim S, Adams RD (1965) The special clinical problem of symptomatic hydrocephalus with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Observations on cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics. J Neurol Sci 2:307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510x(65)90016-x
doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(65)90016-x
pubmed: 5889177
Hellström P, Klinge P, Tans J, Wikkelsø C (2012) A new scale for assessment of severity and outcome in iNPH. Acta Neurol Scand 126:229–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2012.01677.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2012.01677.x
pubmed: 22587624
Henry GK, Algina J (2013) Use of the color trails test as an embedded measure of performance validity. Clin Neuropsychol 27:864–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2013.786758
doi: 10.1080/13854046.2013.786758
pubmed: 23581577
Juby A, Tench S, Baker V (2002) The value of clock drawing in identifying executive cognitive dysfunction in people with a normal mini-mental state examination score. CMAJ 167:859–864
pubmed: 12406943
pmcid: 128397
Kahlon B, Sundbärg G, Rehncrona S (2002) Comparison between the lumbar infusion and CSF tap tests to predict outcome after shunt surgery in suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 73:721–726. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.721
doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.6.721
pubmed: 12438477
pmcid: 1757331
Katzen H, Ravdin LD, Assuras S, Heros R, Kaplitt M, Schwartz TH, Fink M, Levin BE, Relkin NR (2011) Postshunt cognitive and functional improvement in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 68:416–419. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181ff9d01
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181ff9d01
pubmed: 21135747
Kiefer M, Unterberg A (2012) The differential diagnosis and treatment of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109:15–25. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0015 (quiz 26)
doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0015
pubmed: 22282714
pmcid: 3265984
Koivisto AM, Alafuzoff I, Savolainen S, Sutela A, Rummukainen J, Kurki M, Jääskeläinen JE, Soininen H, Rinne J, Leinonen V (2013) Poor cognitive outcome in shunt-responsive idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 72:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827414b3 (discussion 8)
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827414b3
pubmed: 23037817
Laidet M, Herrmann FR, Momjian S, Assal F, Allali G (2015) Improvement in executive subfunctions following cerebrospinal fluid tap test identifies idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus from its mimics. Eur J Neurol 22:1533–1539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.12779
doi: 10.1111/ene.12779
pubmed: 26178145
Marmarou A, Young HF, Aygok GA, Sawauchi S, Tsuji O, Yamamoto T, Dunbar J (2005) Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective study in 151 patients. J Neurosurg 102:987–997. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2005.102.6.0987
doi: 10.3171/jns.2005.102.6.0987
pubmed: 16028756
Mathew R, Pavithran S (2017) Cognition in advanced normal pressure hydrocephalus: a pilot study from South India. Neurol India 65:729–731. https://doi.org/10.4103/neuroindia.NI_1219_15
doi: 10.4103/neuroindia.NI_1219_15
pubmed: 28681740
Matsuoka T, Kawano S, Fujimoto K, Kawahara M, Hashimoto H (2019) Characteristics of cognitive function evaluation using the Montreal cognitive assessment in a cerebrospinal fluid tap test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 186:105524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105524
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105524
pubmed: 31541862
McGovern RA, Nelp TB, Kelly KM, Chan AK, Mazzoni P, Sheth SA, Honig LS, Teich AF, McKhann GM (2019) Predicting cognitive improvement in normal pressure hydrocephalus patients using preoperative neuropsychological testing and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Neurosurgery 85:E662-e669. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz102
doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz102
pubmed: 30937451
Mihalj M, Dolić K, Kolić K, Ledenko V (2016) CSF tap test - obsolete or appropriate test for predicting shunt responsiveness? A systemic review. J Neurol Sci 362:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.028
doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.028
pubmed: 26944123
Missori P, Currà A (2015) Progressive cognitive impairment evolving to dementia parallels parieto-occipital and temporal enlargement in idiopathic chronic hydrocephalus: a retrospective cohort study. Front Neurol 6:15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00015
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00015
pubmed: 25759681
pmcid: 4338750
Miyoshi N, Kazui H, Ogino A, Ishikawa M, Miyake H, Tokunaga H, Ikejiri Y, Takeda M (2005) Association between cognitive impairment and gait disturbance in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 20:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085858
doi: 10.1159/000085858
pubmed: 15908748
Mori E, Ishikawa M, Kato T, Kazui H, Miyake H, Miyajima M, Nakajima M, Hashimoto M, Kuriyama N, Tokuda T, Ishii K, Kaijima M, Hirata Y, Saito M, Arai H (2012) Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 52:775–809. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.52.775
doi: 10.2176/nmc.52.775
Mueller J KR, Langston J (2001) Manual for Cognistat : the neurobehavioral cognitive status examination. Northern California Neurobehavioral Group, Fairfax, Calif
Müller-Schmitz K, Krasavina-Loka N, Yardimci T, Lipka T, Kolman AGJ, Robbers S, Menge T, Kujovic M, Seitz RJ (2020) Normal pressure hydrocephalus associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol 88:703–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25847
doi: 10.1002/ana.25847
pubmed: 32662116
Nesset M, Kersten H, Ulstein ID (2014) Brief tests such as the clock drawing test or Cognistat can be useful predictors of conversion from MCI to dementia in the clinical assessment of outpatients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra 4:263–270. https://doi.org/10.1159/000363734
doi: 10.1159/000363734
pubmed: 25177335
pmcid: 4132250
Ogino A, Kazui H, Miyoshi N, Hashimoto M, Ohkawa S, Tokunaga H, Ikejiri Y, Takeda M (2006) Cognitive impairment in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 21:113–119. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090510
doi: 10.1159/000090510
pubmed: 16374006
Peterson KA, Savulich G, Jackson D, Killikelly C, Pickard JD, Sahakian BJ (2016) The effect of shunt surgery on neuropsychological performance in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol 263:1669–1677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8097-0
doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8097-0
pubmed: 27017344
pmcid: 4971036
Picascia M, Pozzi NG, Todisco M, Minafra B, Sinforiani E, Zangaglia R, Ceravolo R, Pacchetti C (2019) Cognitive disorders in normal pressure hydrocephalus with initial parkinsonism in comparison with de novo Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol 26:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13766
doi: 10.1111/ene.13766
pubmed: 30091839
Picascia M, Zangaglia R, Bernini S, Minafra B, Sinforiani E, Pacchetti C (2015) A review of cognitive impairment and differential diagnosis in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Funct Neurol 30:217–228. https://doi.org/10.11138/fneur/2015.30.4.217
doi: 10.11138/fneur/2015.30.4.217
pubmed: 26727700
Raftopoulos C, Deleval J, Chaskis C, Leonard A, Cantraine F, Desmyttere F, Clarysse S, Brotchi J (1994) Cognitive recovery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective study. Neurosurgery 35:397–404. https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-199409000-00006 (discussion 404-395)
doi: 10.1227/00006123-199409000-00006
pubmed: 7528358
Saito M, Nishio Y, Kanno S, Uchiyama M, Hayashi A, Takagi M, Kikuchi H, Yamasaki H, Shimomura T, Iizuka O, Mori E (2011) Cognitive profile of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra 1:202–211. https://doi.org/10.1159/000328924
doi: 10.1159/000328924
pubmed: 22163245
pmcid: 3199897
Savolainen S, Hurskainen H, Paljärvi L, Alafuzoff I, Vapalahti M (2002) Five-year outcome of normal pressure hydrocephalus with or without a shunt: predictive value of the clinical signs, neuropsychological evaluation and infusion test. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144:515–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-002-0936-3 (discussion 523)
doi: 10.1007/s00701-002-0936-3
Schmidt H, Elster J, Eckert I, Wiefek J, Paulus W, von Steinbuechel N, Abatih EN, Blocher J (2014) Cognitive functions after spinal tap in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol 261:2344–2350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7489-2
doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7489-2
pubmed: 25239390
Skalický P, Mládek A, Vlasák A, De Lacy P, Beneš V, Bradáč O (2019) Normal pressure hydrocephalus-an overview of pathophysiological mechanisms and diagnostic procedures. Neurosurg Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01201-5
doi: 10.1007/s10143-019-01201-5
pubmed: 31705404
Solana E, Sahuquillo J, Junqué C, Quintana M, Poca MA (2012) Cognitive disturbances and neuropsychological changes after surgical treatment in a cohort of 185 patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 27:304–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acs002
doi: 10.1093/arclin/acs002
pubmed: 22382387
Tarnaris A, Toma AK, Pullen E, Chapman MD, Petzold A, Cipolotti L, Kitchen ND, Keir G, Lemieux L, Watkins LD (2011) Cognitive, biochemical, and imaging profile of patients suffering from idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Alzheimers Dement 7:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.003
pubmed: 21757406
Thomas G, McGirt MJ, Woodworth G, Heidler J, Rigamonti D, Hillis AE, Williams MA (2005) Baseline neuropsychological profile and cognitive response to cerebrospinal fluid shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 20:163–168. https://doi.org/10.1159/000087092
doi: 10.1159/000087092
pubmed: 16020945
Tsakanikas D, Relkin N (2007) Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Semin Neurol 27:58–65. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-956756
doi: 10.1055/s-2006-956756
pubmed: 17226742
Walchenbach R, Geiger E, Thomeer RT, Vanneste JA (2002) The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 72:503–506. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503
doi: 10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503
pubmed: 11909911
pmcid: 1737811
Wikkelsø C, Hellström P, Klinge PM, Tans JT (2013) The European iNPH multicentre study on the predictive values of resistance to CSF outflow and the CSF Tap Test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84:562–568. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-303314
doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-303314
pubmed: 23250963
Woods SP, Scott JC, Sires DA, Grant I, Heaton RK, Tröster AI (2005) Action (verb) fluency: test-retest reliability, normative standards, and construct validity. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 11:408–415
doi: 10.1017/S1355617705050460