Background
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is as an autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system (CNS) that is characterized by demyelination and neurodegeneration from the earliest stages of its clinical presentation [
1].
Compared with the arterial system, the development of the extracranial venous anatomy is subject to many variations. In the past, these variations were acknowledged as non-pathological findings Although the possible role of variations in extracranial venous anatomy in the development of the MS was first questioned more than one and a half centuries ago [
2], and ever since, sparse cumulative evidence investigating the vascular etiology of MS pathogenesis has been documented over the years [
3]. However, it was only recently that a causal association between variations in extracranial venous anatomy suggestive of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) and MS has been implied [
4]. CCSVI is characterized by the variations in of main extracranial cerebrospinal venous outflow routes (obstructions of the internal jugular veins, IJV and/or azygos vein) that interfere with normal venous drainage, as evidenced by Doppler sonography (DS) [
4,
5], although other non-invasive [
6] and invasive [
4,
7,
8] imaging methods were also used to detect these variations in extracranial venous anatomy. These variations in extracranial venous anatomy can be extra- or intra-luminal, and are may be a result of congenital truncular venous malformations, which represent an embryologically defective vein where developmental arrest has occurred during the vascular trunk formation period in the ‘later stage’ of the embryonic development [
6].
Although the condition was originally described in MS patients, the results from independent controlled studies demonstrated that there is highly variable prevalence of this condition in patients with other CNS disorders and in healthy individuals (HI) [
5,
8‐
13]. As more research studies became available, the concept of CCSVI as a pathologic condition, its diagnostic utility and clinical impact for MS patients have been questioned, given that no causal relationship between CCSVI and MS has been confirmed [
6,
14]. A recent meta-analysis, including available studies investigating the association of CCSVI frequency with MS, reported considerable heterogeneity across the studies and a conservative sensitivity analysis yielded null association [
14].
Although there is abundant cross-sectional data on this subject [
6], there were only a few studies examining the association of CCSVI and clinical outcomes in MS patients over short-term [
7,
15‐
19], while no long-term prospective studies have been reported, thus far. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore whether there is an association between presence and severity of variations in extracranial venous anatomy, indicative of CCSVI, and clinical outcomes in patients with MS over 5 years.
Results
Demographic and clinical characteristics
The demographics and clinical characteristics of the study subjects are presented in Table
1. The mean age at baseline was 45.1 years in HIs and 47.3 years in MS patients (
p = 0.387). The average follow-up duration was similar in MS patients and HIs (
p = 0.342). No significant differences were observed in the confounding variables between the study groups in terms of their gender, body mass index (BMI), prevalence of pre-existing comorbidities such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia or diabetes mellitus.
Table 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants
Female, n (%) | 25 (67) | 66 (73) | 0.387 |
Baseline age (yrs); mean (SD) | 45.1 (13.6) | 47.3 (10.4) | 0.309 |
Time to F/up (yrs); mean (SD) | 5.4 (0.3) | 5.5 (0.5) | 0.342 |
Baseline BMI (kg/m2); mean (SD) | 26.6 (5.8) | 27.7 (5.9) | 0.363 |
Follow-up BMI (kg/m2); mean (SD) | 26.2 (5.2) | 27.9 (5.9) | 0.363 |
Baseline comorbidities, n (%) |
Hypertension | 6 (16) | 11 (12) | 0.586 |
Hyperlipidemia | 6 (16) | 11 (12) | 0.586 |
Diabetes | 2 (5) | 2 (4) | 0.372 |
Follow-up comorbidities, n (%) |
Hypertension | 9 (24) | 15 (17) | 0.353 |
Hyperlipidemia | 10 (26) | 22 (23) | 0.719 |
Diabetes | 3 (8) | 4 (4) | 0.433 |
Baseline disease duration (yrs), mean (SD) | N/A | 15.3 (10.0) | N/A |
Disease progression, n (%) |
CIS → RR | N/A | 7 (8) | N/A |
RR → SP | 11 (13) |
Remained RR | 46 (51) |
SP since baseline | 27 (30) |
Baseline EDSS, median (IQR) | N/A | 3.0 (1.5–5.5) | N/A |
F/up EDSS, median (IQR) | N/A | 3.5 (2.0–6.0) | N/A |
∆EDSS, mean (SD); median | N/A | 0.3 (0.9); 0.5 | N/A |
DP at F/up, n (%) | N/A | 25 (28) | N/A |
Annualized relapse rate at F/up, mean (SD) | N/A | 0.2 (0.4) | N/A |
Relapse free from baseline to follow-up, n (%) | N/A | 55 (61) | N/A |
Baseline DMT status, n (%) |
Interferon-beta 1a | N/A | 34 (38) | N/A |
Glatiramer acetate | 20 (22) |
Natalizumab | 18 (20) |
Other DMT* | 4 (4) |
No DMT | 14 (16) |
Follow-up DMT status, n (%) |
Remained on same DMT | N/A | 47 (52) | N/A |
Switched to another DMT | 33 (37) |
No DMT | 10 (11) |
In the MS group, 7 (8%) of the patients had progressed from clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) to relapsing-remitting (RR) MS disease subtype, and 10 (11%) from RRMS to secondary-progressive (SP) MS (Table
1). The DP was observed in 25 (28%) of the patient population (Table
1). Eighty (89%) of MS patients were on disease-modifying treatment at the time of their follow-up visit (Table
1). Median ΔEDSS over the follow-up was 0.5, mean annualized ARR was 0.2 per year, and 61% of the patients remained relapse-free from baseline to follow-up.
Detailed demographic and clinical characteristics of the RRMS and SPMS patients at baseline are provided in the Additional file
1: Table S1. Demographic data was also compared between subjects fulfilling and not-fulfilling ISNVD CCSVI criteria at baseline, to understand the influence of these variables on the outcome measures over the follow-up (Table
2). No significant differences were observed between these groups in terms of age, disease duration, BMI, comorbidities or follow-up duration.
Table 2
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the multiple sclerosis patients, according to their fulfillment of CCSVI criteria at baseline
Female, n (%) | 37 (71) | 29 (76) | 0.584 |
Baseline age (yrs); mean (SD) | 47.6 (10.7) | 47 (10.0) | 0.815 |
Time to F/up (yrs); mean (SD) | 5.5 (0.5) | 5.5 (0.4) | 0.810 |
Baseline BMI (kg/m2); mean (SD) | 27.3 (5.4) | 28.7 (6.5) | 0.996 |
Follow-up BMI (kg/m2); mean (SD) | 29.1 (4.9) | 27.2 (6.5) | 0.212 |
Baseline comorbidities, n (%) |
Hypertension | 4 (8) | 7 (18) | 0.125 |
Hyperlipidemia | 6 (12) | 5 (13) | 0.817 |
Diabetes | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0.822 |
Follow-up comorbidities, n (%) |
Hypertension | 7 (13) | 8 (22) | 0.075 |
Hyperlipidemia | 13 (24) | 8 (22) | 0.644 |
Diabetes | 2 (4) | 2 (6) | 0.652 |
Baseline disease duration (yr), mean (SD) | 15.0 (10.2) | 14.4 (9.5) | 0.747 |
Disease progression, n (%) |
CIS → RR | 3 (6) | 4 (11) | N/A |
RR → SP | 7 (14) | 4 (11) |
Remained RR | 25 (48) | 21 (55) |
SP since baseline | 17 (33) | 9 (24) |
Baseline DMT status, n (%) |
Interferon-beta 1a | 17 (33) | 17 (48) | N/A |
Glatiramer acetate | 13 (25) | 7 (18) |
Natalizumab | 13 (25) | 5 (13) |
Other DMT* | 1 (2) | 2 (5) |
No DMT | 8 (15) | 6 (16) |
Follow-up DMT status, n (%) |
Remained on same DMT | 27 (52) | 22 (58) | N/A |
Switched to another DMT | 17 (33) | 13 (34) |
No DMT | 8 (15) | 3 (8) |
Venous hemodynamic differences between and within study groups
Table
3 shows individual VH criteria and frequency of subjects fulfilling ISNVD CCSVI criteria in HIs and MS patients at baseline, and at the follow-up. At baseline, 52 (58%) of MS patients and 14 (37%) of HIs (
p = 0.03) fulfilled ISNVD CCSVI criteria. At the follow-up, the ISNVD CCSVI criteria were fulfilled in 55 (61%) of MS patients and 21 (56%) of HIs (
p = 0.486).
Table 3
Comparison of venous hemodynamic Doppler sonography criteria at baseline and at follow-up study visit in healthy individuals and multiple sclerosis patients
Criterion 1 positivity, n (%) - IJV and/or VV reflux | 8 (21) | 32 (36) | 0.09 |
Criterion 2 positivity, n (%) - Bidirectional IC venous outflow | 10 (26) | 29 (32) | 0.459 |
Criterion 3 positivity, n (%) - B- mode IJV stenosis | 14 (37) | 54 (60) |
0.011
|
Criterion 4 positivity, n (%) - No flow in IJV and/or VV | 3 (8) | 10 (11) | 0.557 |
Criterion 5 positivity, n (%) - IJV CSA90° > IJV CSA0° | 1 (3) | 6 (7) | 0.346 |
CCSVI criteria fulfilled according to the ISNVD consensus [ 22], n (%) | 14 (37) | 52 (58) |
0.03
|
VH Criteria at the follow-up
|
HI (n=38)
|
MS (n = 90)
|
p
-value
|
Criterion 1 positivity, n (%) - IJV and/or VV reflux | 0 (0) | 3 (3) | 0.255 |
Criterion 2 positivity, n (%) - Bidirectional IC venous outflow | 29 (32) | 77 (86) | 0.206 |
Criterion 3 positivity, n (%) - B- mode IJV stenosis | 26 (68) | 55 (61) | 0.433 |
Criterion 4 positivity, n (%) - No flow in IJV and/or VV | 7 (18) | 17 (19) | 0.951 |
Criterion 5 positivity, n (%) - IJV CSA90° > IJV CSA0° | 0 (0) | 12 (13) |
0.018
|
CCSVI criteria fulfilled according to the ISNVD consensus [ 22], n (%) | 21 (56) | 55 (61) | 0.486 |
At the baseline visit, there was a significantly higher prevalence of positive VH criterion 3 in MS patients compared to HIs (54 vs 14, p = 0.011). At the 5-year follow-up visit, there was a significantly higher prevalence of positive VH criterion 5 in MS patients compared to HIs (13 vs 0, p = 0.018), as none of the HIs presented with negative ΔCSA.
Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no within group changes in VH criteria positivity or the fulfillment of the ISNVD CCSVI criteria in MS patients and HIs between baseline and the follow-up. A trend toward significance was observed in VH criterion 5 positivity in MS patients from baseline to follow-up (Z = − 1.732; p = 0.083). On further stratification of MS patients, 9 (24%) of SPMS had positive VH criterion 5 at the follow-up, which was significantly greater compared to baseline (Z = − 2.33; p = 0.02).
Evolution of clinical outcomes according to the baseline fulfillment of the ISNVD CCSVI criteria
Table
4 shows evolution of clinical outcomes, according to the baseline fulfillment of the ISNVD CCSVI criteria. At baseline, there was a trend for higher EDSS in those who fulfilled, compared to those who did not fulfill the criteria (
p = 0.08), which was not evident at the follow-up (
p = 0.11). No differences between those who fulfilled ISNVD CCSVI criteria and those who did not were observed over the follow-up in ΔEDSS, development of DP, number of the relapses between baseline and follow-up, ARR or being relapse-free. No differences in evolution of clinical outcomes was found, according to the baseline fulfillment of the ISNVD CCSVI criteria when RRMS and SPMS patients were considered separately.
Table 4
Evolution of clinical outcomes over 5 years in multiple sclerosis patients, according to their baseline CCSVI status
EDSS at baseline, median (IQR) | 3.0 (1.5–5.5) | 3.5 (2.0–6.0) | 2.5 (1.5–4.0) | 0.08 |
EDSS at follow-up, median (IQR) | 3.5 (2.0–6.0) | 3.5 (1.7–6.5) | 3.0 (2.0–4.0) | 0.11 |
∆EDSS, mean (SD); median | 0.3 (0.9); 0.5 | 0.4 (0.7); 0.5 | 0.2 (1.0); 0.3 | 0.76 |
DP at follow-up, n (%) | 25 (28) | 16 (31) | 9 (24) | 0.50 |
Number of relapses between baseline and follow-up, mean (SD) | 0.9 (2.0) | 0.8 (1.6) | 1.0 (2.5) | 0.52 |
Annual relapse rate over the follow-up, mean (SD) | 0.2 (0.4) | 0.1 (0.3) | 0.2 (0.5) | 0.52 |
Relapse free from baseline to follow-up, n (%) | 55 (61) | 33 (64) | 22 (58) | 0.60 |
Clinical outcomes of MS patients who underwent percutaneous venous angioplasty
Of 7 MS patients who underwent percutaneous angioplasty, 3 (42.9%) were in RRMS and 4 (57.1%) in the SPMS group. Six (86%) of those fulfilled ISNVD CCSVI criteria at baseline and their median EDSS was 4.0. Median time period from the baseline to the date of procedure was 3 months. At their follow-up, 57% patients continued to have fulfilled ISNVD CCSVI criteria. The mean ∆EDSS was 0.2 in RRMS and 0.8 in SPMS patients, respectively over the follow-up. DP was detected in 2 of the 7 patients (33%) and the mean ARR of this subgroup was 0.13.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up study assessing the longitudinal relationship between the presence of variations in extracranial venous anatomy and clinical outcomes in MS patients. The association of variations in extracranial venous anatomy with disability status in MS patients has been a debatable topic over the last decade. Our study found that the presence of variations in extracranial venous anatomy is not exclusive to the MS patients, as there was no significant difference in the prevalence of those in MS patients versus HIs, at the follow-up. Thus, a causal association between the two cannot be implied. Furthermore, a very small subset of our study population underwent venous angioplasty which did not alter the disease course in these patients. Due to the small sample size, these results are only descriptive and no statistical tests have been performed on these data.
The heterogeneity of the extracranial and intracranial venous system was documented using various imaging modalities including DS, MR or contrast venography [
6]. The capacitance of the extracranial neck vessels is highly sensitive to alteration in patient position, hydration status and use of imaging methodology, thus, making standardized assessment challenging, especially longitudinally and particularly using DS [
6]. These practical limitations should be kept in mind, when interpreting results of this follow-up study.
With total of 20% of the patients progressing from CIS to RR or from RR to SP MS, and DP occurring in 28% of the patients, this marks the first case-control study so far, to investigate the impact of variations in extracranial venous anatomy on disease progression in MS patients and its subtypes (relapsing vs progressive). At baseline, we found that prevalence of variations in extracranial venous anatomy was significantly higher in MS patients compared to HIs. However, no differences between MS patients and HIs was found at the follow-up.
The analysis of the current study has concluded on similar lines as our previously reported post hoc
analysis of the cross-sectional CEG-MS study and other reports, which failed to document an association between CCSVI severity and clinical outcomes in MS patients [
13,
23]. Although at baseline, there was a trend towards higher EDSS in patients fulfilling ISNVD CCSVI criteria, this pattern did not continue during our follow-up. In addition, we did not find apparent association between the baseline presence or severity of variations in extracranial venous anatomy and development of DP or change in ∆EDSS, indicating no predictive value in monitoring disability progression. This finding stresses the importance of conducting prospective studies when exploring associations between different conditions.
An interesting finding in our SPMS subgroup was that these patients demonstrated a significant lack of posture-dependent IJV collapse (measured using negative IJV cross-sectional area, as part of the VH criterion 5), while a trend towards significance was observed similarly in the overall MS group. IJV collapse in orthostatism is a physiologic phenomenon influenced by decreased hydrostatic pressure [
24]. To better understand the hemodynamic implications of the above, simultaneous dynamic assessment of cerebral venous outflow should be incorporated. Recent quantitative study of cerebral blood flow has implied an association between altered postural regulation of inflow-outflow in the cerebral vasculature of MS patients [
25].
A concerning aspect of the hypothesis of etiopathogenic role of CCSVI in MS was the introduction of an interventional procedure to correct the deformity [
26]. Use of percutaneous venous angioplasty has been complicated by serious adverse events such as fatal brainstem hemorrhage, iatrogenic cerebral venous thrombosis, stent migration and in-stent thrombosis, among others [
27]. The PREMiSE, a double-blinded randomized trial for the use of venous angioplasty in MS patients demonstrated no benefit in clinical or radiological outcomes with use of venous angioplasty [
7]. Another randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial, Brave Dreams, has shown no clinical or radiological benefit of venous angioplasty for CCSVI in patients with MS [
28]. Though, only 8% of our MS subset had undergone this procedure at outside facilities in the present study, no improvement in clinical outcomes was seen in our patients despite treatment for the underlying variations in extracranial venous anatomy.
The strengths of the present study include a prospective study design with a long follow-up duration of 5.5 years, the employment of blinding Doppler sonographer and neurologists to minimize the ascertainment bias between the study groups, as well as the use of blinded centralized reading of the baseline and follow-up Doppler examinations. All clinical outcome measures and Doppler parameters were assessed at the follow-up by the same personnel, as at baseline to avoid inter-rater variability.
However, a major limitation of this study was that there was a change in technical assessment of VH criteria 1 and 2 [
22], which limited their use for comparison between the two studies timepoints. This further emphasizes that use of DS is not an adequate approach for monitoring variations in extracranial venous anatomy in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Moreover, a number of recent multimodal diagnostic studies showed inadequate sensitivity and specificity of DS in screening real frequency of variations in extracranial venous anatomy [
7,
8,
29], which further outlines a need of applying multimodal approach to screen and monitor these variations in extracranial venous anatomy by using more accurate invasive and non-invasive imaging techniques [
8,
22,
30]. Furthermore, Type II error may be a possibility due to limited sample size. However, we had an 80% power to detect a medium (0.60) effect (G*Power 3.1.9.2), suggesting the study was neither over- nor under-powered. Taken together with the highly similar 5-year change in the clinical outcomes between groups (
p ≥ 0.52), false negative are unlikely.
Competing interests
Sirin Gandhi, Karen Marr, Maria Grazia Caprio, Dejan Jakimovski, Avinash Chandra and Jesper Hagemeier have nothing to disclose.
Marcello Mancini received personal compensation from SDN S.p.A.
David Hojnacki has received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., EMD Serono, Pfizer Inc., and Novartis.
Channa Kolb has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Genzyme and Biogen-Idec.
Bianca Weinstock- Guttman received honoraria as a speaker and as a consultant for Biogen Idec, Teva Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Genzyme&Sanofi, Novartis and Acorda. Dr. Weinstock-Guttman received research funds from Biogen Idec, Teva Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Genzyme&Sanofi, Novartis, Acorda.
Robert Zivadinov received personal compensation from EMD Serono, Genzyme-Sanofi, Claret Medical, Celgene and Novartis for speaking and consultant fees. He received financial support for research activities from Roche-Genenetech, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, Claret Medical, Intekrin-Coherus and IMS Health.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.