Zilver stent versus Carotid Wallstent for endovascular treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension

Background Venous sinus stenting (VSS) is a promising treatment option for medically refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). There are no published studies comparing the performance of different types of stents employed in VSS procedures. In this study we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes of the Zilver 518 (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) and the Carotid Wallstent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) devices. Methods Records of patients with IIH who underwent VSS between January 2015 and February 2022 at a single referral center were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with the Zilver stent or Carotid Wallstent were included in the study. Stent model and size data, pre- and post-treatment pressure gradients, technical and safety outcomes, and pre- and post- stenting papilledema, headache, and tinnitus severity were collected. The χ 2 and Fisher–Freeman–Halton tests were used for categorical data and the Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U test were employed to examine the differences in non-categorical variables. Results A total of 81 procedures (28 (34.5%) with the Zilver stent and 53 (65.5%) with the Carotid Wallstent) were performed in 76 patients. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with the Zilver stent (22.56±10.2 vs 33.9±15 min, p=0.001). The papilledema improvement and resolution rates did not significantly differ between groups (94.7% vs 94.5%, p>0.99 for improvement; 78.9% vs 67.5%, p=0.37 for resolution). The tinnitus improvement and resolution rates in the Zilver stent group were significantly higher than those of the Carotid Wallstent group (100% vs 78.9%, p=0.041; 90% vs 63.1%, p=0.03, respectively). Additionally, the Zilver stent provided a significantly higher rate of headache resolution and improvement than the Carotid Wallstent (84.6% vs 27.6%, p=0.001 for resolution; 92.3% vs 72.3%, p=0.043 for improvement). One patient from the Carotid Wallstent group underwent re-stenting due to in-stent stenosis and refractory papilledema. No significant in-stent stenosis was observed in the Zilver stent group. Conclusion Stent choice may affect VSS outcomes. The Zilver stent provided better clinical outcomes than the Carotid Wallstent, with significantly shorter procedure times. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of available venous stents for IIH.