Advertisement

International Infant Hydrocephalus Study (IIHS): 5-year health outcome results of a prospective, multicenter comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and shunt for infant hydrocephalus

  • Abhaya V. Kulkarni
  • Spyros Sgouros
  • Yael Leitner
  • Shlomi Constantini
  • for the International Infant Hydrocephalus Study Investigators
Original Paper

Abstract

Introduction

One of the most important unanswered questions in pediatric hydrocephalus is determining whether treatment with endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) versus shunt results in improved health status and quality of life (QOL). To answer this, the International Infant Hydrocephalus Study (IIHS) was started in 2005 as a prospective, multicenter study to compare ETV and shunt in infants (< 24 months old) with symptomatic triventricular hydrocephalus from aqueductal stenosis. Herein, we present the 5-year primary outcome results.

Methods

IIHS utilized a prospective comprehensive cohort design, in which patients received ETV or shunt, based on either randomization or parental preference. For this analysis, we pooled the randomized arm and the parental preference arm, analyzing them together. At 5 years of age, children were assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI-2) (primary outcome) and the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire (HOQ), a measure of QOL. Results were compared in an analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline variables including age at surgery and baseline development status.

Results

From a total of 158 patients who met eligibility criteria, complete 5-year outcomes were available on 78 (19 treated initially with shunt, 61 treated initially with ETV), assessed at a mean age of 62.1 months (SD 6.3). The mean 5-year HUI-2 utility score was 0.90 (SD 0.19) for ETV and 0.94 (SD 0.10) for shunt (p = 0.21). The mean 5-year HOQ overall score was 0.81 (SD 0.15) for ETV and 0.85 (SD 0.12) for shunt (p = 0.42). Similarly, there were no significant differences noted between 5-year HOQ subscores (cognitive, social-emotional, physical) or developmental measures at 1, 2, and 3 years.

Conclusions

This is the first prospective direct comparison of long-term outcomes of ETV and shunt for infant hydrocephalus. These results suggest that overall health status and quality of life in this cohort of infants treated for aqueductal stenosis are high, with no significant difference between those treated initially with ETV or shunt.

Trial registration

NCT00652470

Keywords

International Infant Hydrocephalus Study Endoscopic third ventriculostomy Shunt Hydrocephalus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend special thanks to Adina Sherer, who ran the organizational logistics of this study and without whom the IIHS would not have been possible.

Steering committee: Shlomi Constantini (principal investigator), Spyros Sgouros, Abhaya V. Kulkarni

Consultant neurologist: Yael Leitner

Data safety monitoring committee: John RW Kestle (Chair), Douglas D Cochrane, Maurice Choux, Fleming Gjerris

Coordinating administrator: Adina Sherer

Participating investigator authors: Nejat Akalan, Burçak Bilginer (Ankara, Turkey); Ramon Navarro (Barcelona, Spain); Ljiljana Vujotic (Belgrade, Serbia); Hannes Haberl, Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale (Berlin, Germany); Spyros Sgouros (Birmingham, UK); Graciela Zúccaro, Roberto Jaimovitch (Buenos Aires, Argentina); David Frim, Lori Loftis (Chicago, USA); Dale M. Swift, Brian Robertson, Lynn Gargan (Dallas, USA); László Bognár, László Novák, Georgina Cseke (Debrecen, Hungary); Armando Cama, Giuseppe Marcello Ravegnani (Genova, Italy); Matthias Preuß (Giessen/Leipzig, Germany); Henry W. Schroeder, Michael Fritsch, Joerg Baldauf (Greifswald, Germany); Marek Mandera, Jerzy Luszawski, Patrycja Skorupka (Katowice, Poland); Conor Mallucci, Dawn Williams (Liverpool, UK); Krzysztof Zakrzewski, Emilia Nowoslawska (Lodz, Poland); Chhitij Srivastava, Ashok K. Mahapatra, Raj Kumar, Rabi Narayan Sahu (Lucknow, India); Armen G. Melikian, Anton Korshunov, Anna Galstyan (Moscow, Russia); Ashish Suri, Deepak Gupta (New Delhi, India); J. André Grotenhuis, Erik J. van Lindert (Nijmegen, The Netherlands); José Aloysio da Costa Val (Nova Lima, Brazil); Concezio Di Rocco, Gianpiero Tamburrini (Rome, Italy); Samuel Tau Zymberg, Sergio Cavalheiro (São Paulo, Brazil); Ma Jie, Jiang Feng (Shanghai, China); Shlomi Constantini, Orna Friedman (Tel Aviv, Israel); Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Naheeda Rajmohamed (Toronto, Canada); Marcin Roszkowski, Slawomir Barszcz (Warsaw, Poland)

The following centers (and investigators) participated in the IIHS, but did not enroll any patients: Baltimore, MD, USA (George Jallo); Gainesville, FL, USA (David W. Pincus, Bridget Richter); Kiel, Germany (HM Mehdorn, Susan Schultka); London, Ontario, Canada (Sandrine de Ribaupierre); London, UK (Dominic Thompson, Silvia Gatscher); Mainz, Germany (Wolfgang Wagner, Dorothee Koch); Reggio Calabria, Italy (Saverio Cipri, Claudio Zaccone); Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Patrick McDonald)

Compliance with ethical standards

The IIHS was publically registered (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00652470) and received ethics approval from all participating institutions.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kulkarni AV, Sgouros S, Constantini S (2016) International Infant Hydrocephalus Study: initial results of a prospective, multicenter comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and shunt for infant hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst 32:1039–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-016-3095-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulkarni AV, Sgouros S, Constantini S, International Infant Hydrocephalus Study Investigators (2017) Outcome of treatment after failed endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) in infants with aqueductal stenosis: results from the International Infant Hydrocephalus Study (IIHS). Childs Nerv Syst 33:747–752.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3382-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sgouros S, Kulkharni AV, Constantini S (2006) The international infant hydrocephalus study: concept and rational. Childs Nerv Syst 22:338–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-005-1253-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Hayon BB, Drake JM, Ossip MG, Tuli S, Clarke M (1998) Frontal and occipital horn ratio: a linear estimate of ventricular size for multiple imaging modalities in pediatric hydrocephalus. Pediatr Neurosurg 29:245–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Armstrong DC, Dirks PB (1999) Measurement of ventricular size: reliability of the frontal and occipital horn ratio compared to subjective assessment. Pediatr Neurosurg 31:65–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankenburg WK, Dodds J, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B (1992) The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Pediatrics 89:91–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Rabin D, Dirks PB, Humphreys RP, Rutka JT (2004) Measuring the health status of children with hydrocephalus by using a new outcome measure. J Neurosurg 101:141–146.  https://doi.org/10.3171/ped.2004.101.2.0141 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kulkarni AV, Rabin D, Drake JM (2004) An instrument to measure the health status in children with hydrocephalus: the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Neurosurg 101:134–140.  https://doi.org/10.3171/ped.2004.101.2.0134 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kulkarni AV (2010) Quality of life in childhood hydrocephalus: a review. Childs Nerv Syst 26:737–743.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-010-1131-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulkarni AV, Cochrane DD, McNeely PD, Shams I (2008) Medical, social, and economic factors associated with health-related quality of life in Canadian children with hydrocephalus. J Pediatr 153:689–695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.04.068 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulkarni AV (2006) Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59:176–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feeny D (2000) A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. Med Care 38(Suppl):151–154Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, Torrance GW, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S (1992) A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 10:923–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Saigal S, Sun J (2004) Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58:799–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulkarni AV, Shams I, Cochrane DD, McNeely PD (2010) Quality of life after endoscopic third ventriculostomy and cerebrospinal fluid shunting: an adjusted multivariable analysis in a large cohort. J Neurosurg Pediatr 6:11–16.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.PEDS09358 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kulkarni AV, Hui S, Shams I, Donnelly R (2010) Quality of life in obstructive hydrocephalus: endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared to cerebrospinal fluid shunt. Childs Nerv Syst 26:75–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-009-0983-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kulkarni AV, Donnelly R, Mabbott DJ, Widjaja E (2015) Relationship between ventricular size, white matter injury, and neurocognition in children with stable, treated hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 16:267–274.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.PEDS14597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mandell JG, Kulkarni AV, Warf BC, Schiff Steven J (2014) Volumetric brain analysis in neurosurgery: Part 2. Brain and CSF volumes discriminate neurocognitive outcomes in hydrocephalus.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.PEDS12427
  19. 19.
    Kulkarni AV, Shams I (2007) Quality of life in children with hydrocephalus: results from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. J Neurosurg 107:358–364.  https://doi.org/10.3171/PED-07/11/358 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulkarni AV, Donnelly R, Shams I (2011) Comparison of Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire scores to neuropsychological test performance in school-aged children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 8:396–401.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.PEDS1179 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Platenkamp M, Hanlo PW, Fischer K, Gooskens RH (2007) Outcome in pediatric hydrocephalus: a comparison between previously used outcome measures and the hydrocephalus outcome questionnaire. J Neurosurg 107:26–31.  https://doi.org/10.3171/PED-07/07/026 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Mitera Children’s HospitalUniversity of Athens Medical SchoolAthensGreece
  3. 3.Institute of Child Development, Dana Children’s Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Dana Children’s Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations