Combined Conduit Score in Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Venography in Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Neuro-interventionalistsʼ vs. Radiologistsʼ Assessment

BACKGROUND: Based on increased understanding of the idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) pathophysiology, venous sinus stenting (VSS) has emerged as an effective treatment for patients with transverse sinus stenosis (TSS). The presence of a reliable TSS screening tool is warranted. The combined conduit score (CCS) is the most widely used score for evaluation of the cerebral sinovenous stenosis in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography (CE-MRV). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the interobserver agreement between neuro-interventionalists and radiologists with respect to the CCS in evaluation of transverse sinus stenosis in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension using CE-MRV. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 26 consecutive patients diagnosed with IIH and underwent CE-MRV. The 2 neuro-interventionalists and 2 radiologists separately evaluated the cerebral venous sinuses using the CCS. RESULTS: The mean CCS was significantly different between the neuro-interventionalists and radiologists (p < 0.001), higher for the radiologists. The inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.954, 95% CI: 0.898–0.979) between the 2 neuro-interventionalists, good between the 2 radiologists (ICC = 0.805, 95% CI: 0.418–0.921), but was not acceptable between the neuro-interventionalists and the radiologists (ICC 0.47 95% CI:−2.2–0.782). CONCLUSION: Despite the excellent agreement between the neuro-interventionists and the good agreement between the radiologists, there was no agreement between the neuro-interventionists and the radiologists. Our finding suggests that there is a gap between the 2 specialties but does not favor any of them. Factors related to the observers, the venous sinus system, the MRV or the CCS score may have resulted in this discrepancy. Automatic or semi-automatic feature extractions to produce quantifiable biomarkers for IIH are warranted. The clinical decisions should not depend only on strongly observer-dependent scores with training and/or experience-dependent influences.