Abstract
Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) leads to cognitive impairment (CI) as part of its triad of symptoms. Assessment of CI before and after a tap test can be used to inform diagnosis, differentiate NPH symptoms from alternative or concomitant causes of CI, and suggest the potential benefits of valve placement. The aims of this study are: to describe cognitive performance in patients with NPH diagnosis before and after a tap test, and to compare CI between patients with NPH meeting criteria for a dementia diagnosis (D +) and those without criteria for dementia (D−) at both baseline and after the tap-test. We performed a Before-and-after study evaluating clinical features and performance on cognitive tests (CERAD, ADAS-COG, SVF, PVF, ROCF and IFS). We included 76 NPH patients, with a median age of 81 years. 65 patients (87.8%) improved cognitive performance after tap test. ROCF (p = 0.018) and IFS (p < 0.001) scores significantly change after the tap test. Dementia was concomitant in 68.4% of patients. D + group showed higher proportion of patients with altered performance in IFS, PVF, SVF, and ROCF than D- group at baseline (p < 0.05). A significant improvement in SVF and IFS was observed exclusively in the D− group after tap test. Our results suggest that executive function and praxis are the cognitive domains more susceptible to improvement after a tap test in a 24-h interval in NPH patients. Moreover, the D− group showed a higher proportion of improvement after the tap test in executive function and verbal fluency test compared with the D + group.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by ventriculomegaly with normal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure and the clinical triad of cognitive impairment, symmetric gait disturbance and urinary incontinence, also known as Hakim’s triad [1]. NPH is one of the leading causes of treatable dementia in the elderly, especially if there is no other neurologic comorbidity [1]. Cognitive impairment has variable severity and manifests mainly through attention deficit, decrease of psychomotor speed and disruption of executive functions [2]. Disturbances in memory may be secondary to decreased frontal lobe functional integration [3]. Other common symptoms are difficulty in word retrieval and speech production, and impairment of visuospatial skills [4]. Mood and behavioral disturbances are also relatively common and include apathy, bradypsychia and bradyphrenia [4, 5].
Cognitive symptoms are caused by dysfunction of frontal-subcortical pathways [6]. In an initial stage, deficits are observed in functions supported by frontostriatal circuits, namely in the executive domain and working memory [7]. This progresses to deficits in other domains and a general slowing of information processing speed, leading to difficulties in activities of daily living and functional dependence [6, 7]. Although memory appears to be relatively preserved in the early stages, it has been suggested that disturbances in verbal declarative memory can precede executive dysfunction [8].
To date, there is no consensus about the neural correlates of cognitive dysfunction in patients with NPH. Compromise of subcortical structures such as the limbic circuit, dysfunction of frontal subcortical white matter and cortico-subcortical gray matter connections might explain the myriad of symptoms [6, 7, 9]. Likewise, the predominance of frontal symptoms could be explained by the dilation of the anterior horn of the lateral ventricle that affects deep frontal areas including the rostrum and genus of corpus callosum [3]. Cognitive disturbances in NPH patients have also been linked to decreased blood flow to the lingual gyrus [10]. Ventriculomegaly on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accompanied by Hakim’s triad raises clinical suspicion of NPH, which is diagnosed through the objective examination of the clinical triad before and after a tap test [8].
Significant improvement in all domains tested: memory (ten-word list), attention and psychomotor speed (two choice reaction test, Stroop congruent colors), executive functions (Stroop incongruent colors), and manual dexterity (four-finger tapping), has been reported after CSF shunting procedure [4, 11, 12]. Early shunting may delay disease progression and improve quality of life [3]. Reported success rates range between 60 and 80%; hence the importance of adequately assessing and selecting patients [3, 13].
Since a specific cognitive profile in NPH patients has not been identified [14], using standardized protocols to assess cognitive functions is of great importance to ensure proper diagnosis, especially as NPH is thought to be underdiagnosed and increased awareness of its clinical manifestations is necessary [15]. In this study, we assessed changes in neuropsychological evaluations before and after a lumbar tap test in patients with NPH. This study also compares the cognitive profiles of patients with NPH)meeting criteria for a dementia diagnosis (D +) and those without criteria for dementia (D−) at both baseline and after the tap-test intervention, providing insights into the cognitive differences between these two patient cohorts.
2 Methods
2.1 Design and participants
This is a quasi-experimental design. A before-and-after study based on a specialized clinical registry of consecutive patients with NPH diagnosis that presented to the NPH Clinical Care Program of a tertiary care university hospital in Bogotá, Colombia, between May 2016 and October 2020. The study site is a clinical center certified by Joint Commission International since 2017. Patients presenting symptoms of the triad, primarily gait disturbance, presented to neurosurgery consultation, where each patient was examined to determine eligibility for entry into the center. Patients enter a diagnostic process at the clinical center if NPH is suspected based on the presence of at least one of the triad symptoms (gait disturbance, urinary incontinence and cognitive impairment) and suggestive findings on neuroimaging studies. Patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of specialists (neurosurgery, neurology, geriatrics, neuropsychology, and occupational, speech and physical therapist) to determine NPH diagnosis. Cognitive assessment was made by a neuropsychology group, trained to apply the evaluation tests. This study included adult patients who presented to the NPH Clinical Care Program and were diagnosed with NPH by consensus of the multidisciplinary group of specialists that assessed the triad of symptoms. Patients with a visual or hearing impairment, or active delirium without a caregiver or informant that could affect cognitive evaluation, were excluded.
Based on the interdisciplinary evaluation involving specialists in neurology, geriatrics, neuropsychology, and neurosurgery, the presence of dementia was established. Because multiple diseases involving cognitive decline and functional loss, like NPH, do not show compromised memory in initial phases, participants included in the dementia (D +) group met the main clinical criteria for the diagnosis of dementia (of any etiology) based on the recommendations of the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association criteria [16]. These criteria suggest a progressive course, and functional impairments and compromise in two or more cognitive domains independent of memory.
The cognitive profiles of patients who met the criteria for a dementia diagnosis (D +) and those without criteria for dementia (D-) at both baseline and after the tap-test intervention were compared. The D + group was not further subdivided based on the degree of cognitive deterioration (mild, moderate, and severe) to avoid further subdividing the sample and to ensure a substantial group for comparison with the non-dementia group (D−).
We used clinical records of the neuropsychological evaluations of attention, memory, praxis and executive function. Analogous tests were administrated for each cognitive domain to mitigate the impact of learning effect on assessing changes before and after a tap test. Cognitive assessment was made by neuropsychologists who were trained to apply evaluation tests in this specific clinical population. All consultations before tap test were conducted in the morning. The neuropsychology evaluation lasted 60 min; the other consultations lasted 30 min each. Subsequently, a lumbar puncture was performed. The lumbar tap test involved removing CSF until a closing pressure of 0 cm H2O was achieved; at our NPH Clinical Care Program, we guide CSF extraction not by a standard quantity but by that needed to decrease CSF pressure to a closing pressure of 0 cmH2O, as symptom improvement after the tap test is believed to occur due to the decrease in pressure, not directly as a result of removing a certain quantity of fluid [17]. The evaluations after tap test were conducted the following afternoon. The time interval between neuropsychological evaluations was 24 hours. This study was approved by the institutional ethics review board prior to the start of the study.
2.2 Measurements
Demographic and clinical characteristics including age, sex, level of education, triad symptoms, history of vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dementia were collected.
2.2.1 Neuropsychological tests
Validated neuropsychological tests of memory, praxis, verbal fluency and executive function were used to assess cognitive performance before and after the tap-test.
Memory: Explicit verbal memory was evaluated through both the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-COG) and the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word List Memory Task (CERAD) [11, 18,19,20]. Immediate recall of three learning trials gives information about short term memory (STM), and a delayed recall trial gives information about long term memory (LTM). These scales were validated for the Colombian population by Romero-Vanegas (2014) and Aguirre-Acevedo et al. [21, 22]. The selection of two memory tests had the aim of using one memory test before the tap test and another memory test after the tap test to avoid learning effects in the post tap test evaluation. Moreover, the order of the tests alternated randomly.
Visuoconstructional praxis: We used the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Copy (ROCF) [14]. This test is validated for the Colombian population by Hernández et al.[15]
Verbal fluency: We used categories such as “animals or fruits” to assess semantic verbal fluency (SVF) [23]. Phonological verbal fluency (PVF) was assessed with words starting with letter “P or M” [23]. Both have been validated for the Colombian population [15].
Executive function: We used the INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) [24].
2.3 Statistical analysis
A sample size of at least 50 patients was determined to detect small changes in continuous variables (scores) between dependent/paired samples, but it was planned to include all patients from the described period that fulfilled selection criteria to further increase power and precision. Extreme and odd values were verified with source documents. Statistical analyses were conducted using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2 in RStudio software v. 1.3.10.
Descriptive analysis was used to summarize clinical features, level of education and results of neuropsychological assessments. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the distribution of continuous variables, which determined the use of mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR).
Because the results from different neuropsychological tests have variable interpretations depending on the level of education, population mean values were used to calculate z-scores for all tests and each patient according to the level of education. Z-score units describe standard deviations away from the mean, and thus served to determine “altered” or “not altered” cognitive performance based on z-scores < -1 or > 1, depending on the test (1 SD away from the population mean, considering age and education) [15, 21, 22, 24]. An inversion of the z-scores was used for memory tests that score performance based on insufficiency instead of proficiency (ADAS-COG in short and long term memory) to allow for comparisons before and after the tap test. Differences in z-scores before and after the tap test were assessed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (paired, non-parametric test) or the paired t-test (parametric) according to data distribution.
Differences in proportion of patients with deficient performance according to z-score before and after the tap test were assessed for each neuropsychological test with the McNemar’s test (paired “change” test for dichotomous data). Direct comparison of test scores was only adequate for the ROCF and IFS tests, and differences in these scores were also assessed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test or the paired t-test according to data distribution. Boxplots were used to display distribution and change in individual z-scores for verbal fluency, praxis, executive function and memory tests.
3 Results
Overall, 76 patients fulfilled selection criteria and were included for analysis. Median age was 81 years (IQR: 77–83) and most patients were men (69.7%). A high level of education (> 12 years of education) was reported by 61.8% of patients. Additionally, data on hypertension, type II diabetes and dementia are reported on Table 1; no other data on comorbidities or medications were collected. Baseline characteristics and classic (triad) symptom improvement after tap test are displayed in Table 1.
3.1 Changes in cognition before and after tap test
A total of 65 patients (87.8%) were considered to have improved cognitive performance after the tap test, based on cognitive tests applied: ADAS-COG/CERAD, SVF, PVF, ROCF, IFS. Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard deviation in patients before and after tap test.
Absolute scores and corresponding z-scores of neuropsychological tests are summarized in Table 3. Significant differences in cognitive performance pre- and post-tap test were found regarding the ROCF and the IFS. The distribution of the direct scores and their change after tap test are displayed in Fig. 1.
For some patients, not all tests were performed. Thus, the proportion of altered performance was calculated based on available data. Missing data occurred for 12 patients in PVF, 20 patients in SVF, 5 patients in ROCF, 6 patients in IFS, 8 patients in LTM and 23 patients in STM. (LTM and STM are variables determined in the ADAS-COG/CERAD tests).
At baseline, altered performance in verbal fluency occurred in 41/64 patients (69.5%) for PVF and in 47/56 patients (83.9%) for SVF. 42/66 patients (63.6%) and 28/68 patients (41.2%) had altered performance in STM and LTM, respectively; 37/71 patients (52.1%) had altered performance in ROCF assessment, as well as 66/70 patients (94.3%) in the executive functions screening test (IFS). Table 4 displays results of hypothesis testing for change of altered performance.
3.2 Comparisons in clinical and cognitive improvement after spinal tap discriminating by diagnosis of dementia
Table 5 shows the mean scores and standard deviation in patients with (D +) and without (D-) a previous history of dementia. Interestingly, the mean for D + patients was slightly higher than that of D- patients in all tests except for the ROCF after tap test. The standard deviation (SD) for the scores of D + patients was also higher in all cases, except for STM, where the SD is the same for D + and D− patients. When comparing mean scores before and after tap test, the mean after tap test is higher for all variables, except for SVF, in which the mean for D− patients was lower after tap test and the mean for D + patients did not vary, and STM in D + patients, which also did not vary after the tap test. The SD after tap test was higher than that previous to tap test in almost every variable, the exception being SVF and ROCF, in which the SD decreased after tap test for both D + and D− patients.
Table 6 displays the comparisons in test performance between patients with a positive history of dementia and a negative history of dementia. No significant differences were found in the proportion of improvement observed in the symptoms of the clinical triad after the spinal tap between D + patients and D− patients. Gait improvement was documented in 94.2% of D + and 87.5% of D− (p value = 0.37, from Fisher test); improvement of cognitive impairment in 88.5% of D + and 86.4% of D− patients (p value > 0.99, from Fisher test); and improvement of urinary incontinence in 46.9% of D + and 58.8% of D− patients (p value = 0.57, from Fisher test). These findings suggested that the effect of the spinal tap on gait, incontinence and cognitive performance could be independent of the presence of concomitant dementia; although the sample size for comparisons was small and thus underpowered to detect small differences.
The performance in cognitive tests at baseline (before the tap test) showed differences between D- and D + in the proportion of patients that had an altered performance in PVF (PVF = 50% vs 79.5%, p-value = 0.042), in the ROCF total score (ROCF = 20.8% vs 68.1%, p-value < 0.001), and in the STM (STM = 45.5% vs 72.7%, p-value = 0.057), in which the D + group showed a higher proportion of patients with altered performance. After the spinal tap, significant differences between D + and D- were observed in the proportion of patients that had a deficit score in verbal fluency (PVF = 34.8% vs 73.2%, p value = 0.006; SVF = 57.1% vs 92.1%, p-value = 0.004), in the ROCF total score (ROCF = 25% vs 57.4%, p-value = 0.019), and in executive functions (IFS = 75% vs 97.8%, p-value = 0.009), in which the D + group showed a higher proportion of patients with altered performance.
Finally, the proportion of improvement in z-scores after the spinal tap was significantly different between groups regarding the SVF and IFS. The D- group showed a significantly higher proportion of improvement than the D + group in the test of semantic verbal fluency (SVF = 28.6% vs 2.9%, p-value = 0.003) and in executive functions (IFS = 16.7% vs 0%, p-value = 0.014). These results suggest the D + group exhibited a higher proportion of deficit in cognitive tests at both pre-tap test and post-tap test evaluation. The D- group showed a higher proportion of improvement after the tap test in executive function and verbal fluency test.
4 Discussion
This study, which aimed to describe and assess the cognitive profile of NPH patients at baseline and after a lumbar tap test, found impairments in all cognitive processes and a significant improvement in visuoconstructional praxis and executive functions during diagnostic process.
Cognitive impairments at baseline included a wide spectrum of disturbances, mainly in the executive function domain, followed by semantic and phonological verbal fluency, visuo-constructional praxis, attentional abilities, verbal explicit learning, and memory. Similar findings have been reported previously, including impairments in short term memory, bradypsychia and difficulties in the ability to find and pronounce words correctly [5], attention, executive functions, verbal fluency, memory [25], as well as visuo-constructional praxis [26]. To highlight, in our study, memory disturbances in the free recovery processes were notable. This ability, besides being mediated by both the information storage and recovery processes, is also affected by the executive functions domain because it depends on the capacity of retrieving stored information, usually affected in clinical conditions compromising subcortical structures. In accordance with our findings, some authors have postulated that memory deterioration is associated with the subcortical profile that characterizes this disease [4, 25]. Likewise, it has been proposed that memory impairments may result from decrease in the functional integration of the frontal lobes [27].
Although cognitive impairments at baseline can offer valuable information regarding the etiology of the symptoms, this is not enough to make the diagnosis of NPH, nor to recommend CSF shunt surgery [28,29,30]. Symptom improvement, or lack there-of, after a lumbar tap test provides valuable information needed to confirm this diagnosis and determine a patient’s prognosis regarding shunt responsiveness. If a patient’s symptoms improve after the tap test, this improvement will be expected as well after shunt surgery [1, 28].
The improvement observed in the cognitive profile after the tap test in the executive functions in our study is consistent with a previous study reporting improvement of inhibitory control after a tap test [31, 32]. Improvement in verbal memory and mental speed [31], and in processes related to information search and access, such as those involved in the verbal fluency task [33], has also been reported. Patients in our study did not display verbal memory and verbal fluency changes.
Some of the discrepancies between our results and the findings in other published studies may be explained by several factors. We chose these factors because they are those that have been discussed in much of the research that has evaluated changes in the tap test. [1, 4, 31, 32] One is the time of clinical assessment, described in some studies at 2–6 h, [31, 33] to 24 h,[1, 4, 32] and up to 1 week [1, 32] after the lumbar puncture. In our study, the clinical assessment was performed 24 h after the tap test. Nevertheless, no optimal time for assessment has been established in the literature [1]. Other factors like the quantity of CSF removed, or the setting characteristics could explain the differences between our results and those reported in previous studies. However, no significant differences in clinical outcomes have been reported either in the revised scientific literature when 30-50 ml are removed [1]; therefore, such differences are unlikely to be influenced by variations in volume of cerebrospinal fluid removed. Likewise, the hospital setting could produce fatigue in the patient and skew the results [31]; however, the revised studies were also performed in this setting. Thus, it is unlikely that such factors explain the discrepancies observed. Better explanations are the use of different time intervals between evaluations and differences in sample size that allow higher statistical power to detect changes.
On the other hand, we did not evaluate the association between neuroimaging markers and cognitive profiles in our sample, but the alterations in multiple cognitive processes suggest a widespread alteration of cortical and subcortical structures. In fact, differences in the level of impairment in patients with NPH are thought to depend on the extent of brain injury [34]. Thus, executive dysfunction or a global cognitive compromise could be generated by disruptions in subcortical areas connecting with the frontal lobe cortex disturbance [34]. In addition, other structural alterations such as extension of the anterior horn of the lateral ventricles, accompanied by a significant compression of the brain capillaries due to the increased hydrostatic tissue fluid pressure of the parenchyma [3], frontal and anterior area of corpus callosum dysfunction [3], axonal injury, brain white matter ischemic demyelination, and microinfarcts have also been associated with cognitive impairment in NPH patients [13].
The level of improvement after the lumbar tap test both in magnitude and domain aspects is highly dependent on clinical variables, like alcohol consumption and comorbidities such as vascular risk factors and dementia like Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) [35,36,37,38,39]. Indeed, most of the patients in our cohort had pre-existent dementia diagnosis (68.42%) which may have negatively influenced the improvement after the lumbar tap test. Other variables such as cognitive reserve, have been associated with better coping with age-related cognitive decline and the negative consequences of brain pathology [40]. Although we considered the educational level in our sample, other sociobehavioral indicators of cognitive reserve.
(occupational achievements and leisure activities) were not included but could represent a topic for future research.
Numerous studies have found common biomarkers in both AD and NPH patients [40, 41]. Our study does not discriminate between the multiple possible etiologies of D + patients, but in the case of common biomarkers, subsequent studies could discriminate between the clinical profiles of patients with AD and patients with NPH in order to clarify the diagnoses and improve the expectations of families and patients regarding their improvement.
In examining the cognitive performance after the tap test in patients with HPN, our study brings forth valuable insights into the discrepancy between individuals meeting criteria for dementia (D +) compared to those without dementia criteria (D−). Our analysis revealed a nuanced perspective on the cognitive changes associated with lumbar puncture, emphasizing the need to consider the baseline cognitive differences within these subgroups. Notably, our findings demonstrate divergent patterns in the proportion of improvement in z-scores post-spinal tap, with specific emphasis on semantic verbal fluency (SVF) and executive functions (IFS). The D− group exhibited a significantly higher proportion of improvement in these cognitive domains compared to the D + group, underscoring the distinct cognitive responses to the tap test within each cohort. These observations highlight the necessity for tailored interventions that recognize and address the unique cognitive profiles present in different subgroups of NPH patients. As D + patients did not seem to improve substantially in semantic fluency, thus showing a differential cognitive profile between D + and D− patients in this cognitive domain, it must be noticed that impairments in semantic access have been closely related to AD [42,43,44]; therefore, this finding is promising as a relevant clinical element in the diagnostic process of suspected NPH patients. Moreover, in contrast to AD, memory impairment is not the dominant manifestation in NPH [45]. These findings support the specificity of cognitive impairment in patients with NPH as a single clinical entity, predominantly affecting executive functions.
Our study provides significant results in the clinical and research field as it underlines the importance of semantic fluency and executive functioning tests in the differential diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus in tap test protocols. In fact, an improvement in semantic fluency tests could be a significant clinical variable when discriminating between D + and D−. Moreover, our study provides valuable information comparing the cognitive profiles of two groups: patients with NPH meeting the criteria for a dementia diagnosis (D +) and those without criteria for dementia (D−) at both baseline and after the tap-test intervention, providing insights into the cognitive differences between these two patient cohorts.
A strength of our study is that NPH diagnosis was achieved through an interdisciplinary evaluation by neurosurgery, physiatry, neuropsychology, and physical, occupational and speech therapy. Even though the literature on NPH highlights the impairment in executive functions and attention, we consider that it is highly relevant to evaluate several cognitive domains in order to better characterize the baseline and after-tap test cognitive profiles. The cognitive tests that we propose have some advantages: they are not time-consuming and they include tasks that evaluate different levels of cognitive ability, which is important when examining patients with dementia or low education. Moreover, we carefully select the memory tests, searching for a similar structure, allowing us to avoid learning effects in the post-tap test evaluation.
One of the limitations of this study is that a direct measurement of attentional processes was not available. Additionally, the type of dementia could not be determined in cases of comorbidity and we do not have a cognitive follow-up after CSF shunt. Further studies should include a longitudinal follow-up and should establish the etiology of dementia. This would help to precisely determine the improvement after CSF shunt procedures in patients with mixed dementia or other comorbidities.
We acknowledge the limitation regarding the lack of subgroup analysis based on the degree of cognitive deterioration in the dementia group. The decision not to stratify the dementia group into mild, moderate, and severe categories was made due to the current constraints in sample size. We believe that maintaining a more consolidated group (D +) facilitates meaningful comparisons with the non-dementia group (D−). We recognize the importance of future studies with larger sample sizes that can explore nuanced variations in cognitive impairment severity and its implications.
5 Conclusions
In conclusion, the examination of cognitive processes before and after the tap test in NPH patients reveals a significant improvement in executive processes and constructional praxis. Furthermore, comparing cognitive alterations between D + and D− patients, as expected, worse performance was observed before the tap test in most of D + patients, especially in IFS, PVF, SVF, and ROCF. While an improvement in symptoms of the clinical triad was observed in both D + and D− groups, a significant improvement in SVF and IFS was observed exclusively in D- patients.
These findings underscore the cognitive impairment that occurs in NPH patients, the improvement that can be achieved with the tap test, and therefore its importance during the diagnosis and prognosis of the disease. We hope our findings will help improve this diagnostic process by aiding clinicians in knowing what changes to look for in the cognitive symptoms after the tap test, through a more formal evaluation of these impairments.
Determining the cognitive profile in NPH is essential, not only to contribute with the diagnosis of the disease, but also to identify the level of cognitive impairment that is present; if it is compatible with dementia or a mild cognitive disorder [25]. Additionally, looking for the etiology of cognitive symptoms could allow to tailor the expectations around the cognitive improvement from a CSF shunt, because persistence or reappearance of this kind of symptoms is observed in patients with multidimensional etiologies dementia (NPH plus another cause) [46].
Finally, we want to highlight the importance of undertaking the assessment of NPH patients through an interdisciplinary approach, in which the diagnostic role of the tap test in combination with a structured cognitive evaluation constitutes a valuable tool. We call attention to the importance of determining the cognitive profile of the patient to understand the changes in their daily activities, offer them a conducive environment in their home and facilitate the management of the expectations of patients and their families, which will finally produce a positive impact on the patients and caregivers.
5.1 What is already known on this topic
Cognitive impairment in NPH patients can affect different processes (attention and executive process, psychomotor speed, visuoconstructional skills), and significant improvement in various domains has been reported after lumbar punction. However, there is no consensus about the cognitive profile of NPH patients, likewise further studies are needed to determine which cognitive processes are most likely to improve after shunt.
5.2 What this study adds
This study describes and assesses the cognitive profile of NPH patients at baseline and after the tap test. We found impairments in all cognitive processes, mainly in the executive function domain; we also found a significant improvement in visuoconstructional praxis and executive functions, as well as differential profiles in patients with preexisting dementia, especially in semantic information access and memory impairment.
5.3 How this study might affect research, practice or policy
The findings of this study highlight clinical elements that can contribute to the diagnosis of NPH and suggest a standardized protocol that will ensure a proper diagnosis for these patients.
Data availability
Research data cannot be shared openly because these data were taken from confidential medical records. Research involving human research participants may present a risk of reidentification if shared openly. This includes both quantitative and qualitative research data. If you need access to the data, please contact the corresponding author.
References
Nakajima M, Yamada S, Miyajima M, et al. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: endorsed by the Japanese society of normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Medic Chir. 2021;61:63–97.
Damasceno BP. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: diagnostic and predictive evaluation. Dement Neuropsychol. 2009;3:8–15.
Gavrilov GV, Gaydar BV, Svistov DV, et al. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (Hakim-Adams syndrome): clinical symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. Psychiatr Danub. 2019;31:737–44.
Behrens A. Measurements in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Computerized neuropsychological test battery and intracranial pulse waves [Ph.D]. Umeå universitet 2014.
Baltatanu D, Berteanu M. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus—what we know. Mædica. 2019;14:161–4.
Passos-Neto CEB, Lopes CCB, Teixeira MS, Studart Neto A, Spera RR. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: an update. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2022;80(5 Suppl 1):42–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/0004-282X-ANP-2022-S118.
Xiao H, Hu F, Ding J, Ye Z. Cognitive Impairment in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. Neurosci Bull. 2022 Sep;38(9):1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-022-00873-2. Epub 2022 May 15. Erratum in: Neurosci Bull. 2022.
Lilja-Lund O, Maripuu M, Kockum K, Andersson J, Lindam A, Nyberg L, Laurell K. Longitudinal neuropsychological trajectories in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a population-based study. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-03747-y.PMID:36647004;PMCID:PMC9843855.
Skalický P, Mládek A, Vlasák A, De Lacy P, Beneš V, Bradáč O. Normal pressure hydrocephalus—an overview of pathophysiological mechanisms and diagnostic procedures. Neurosurg Rev. 2020;43(6):1451–64.
Suzuki Y, Iseki C, Igari R, Sato H, Koyama S, Kawahara H, Itagaki H, Sonoda Y, Ohta Y. Reduced cerebral blood flow of lingual gyrus associated with both cognitive impairment and gait disturbance in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Sci. 2022;437:120266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2022.120266.
Graff-Radford NR, Jones DT. Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Continuum. 2019;25:165–86.
Peterson KA, Mole TB, Keong NC, et al. Structural correlates of cognitive impairment in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurol Scand. 2019;139:305–12.
Marumoto K, Koyama T, Hosomi M, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in elderly patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus or Parkinson’s disease: diagnosis of gait abnormalities. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2012;9:20.
Hebb AO, Cusimano MD. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review of diagnosis and outcome. Neurosurgery. 2001;49:1166–84.
Bluett B, Ash E, Farheen A, Fasano A, Krauss JK, Maranzano A, Passaretti M, Tang-Wai DF, Van Gerpen J, Alonso-Canovas A, Youn J, Malm J, Martino D, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Study Group. Clinical features of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: critical review of objective findings. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2022;10(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13608.
McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack CR Jr, Kawas CH, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute of Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association workgroup. Alzheimer´s Dement 2011; 7: 263–9.
Gómez-Amarillo DF, Pulido LF, Mejía I, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid closing pressure-guided tap test for the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a descriptive cross-sectional study. Surg Neurol Int. 2020;2(11):315. https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_380_2020.
Micchia K, Formica C, De Salvo S, Muscarà N, Bramanti P, Caminiti F, Marino S, Corallo F. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects: a narrative review. Medicine. 2022;101(9): e28922. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028922.
Romero-Vanegas SJ. Validación del instrumento “Alzheimer’s Disease Assesment Scale”(ADAS) para poblaciones con enfermedad de alzheimer y deterioro cognoscitivo leve en Colombia 2012–1013 [Mg]. Universidad Nacional de Colombia 2014.
Aguirre-Acevedo DC, Gómez RD, Moreno S, et al. Validity and reliability of the CERAD-Col neuropsychological battery. Rev Neurol. 2007;45:655–60.
Picascia M, Minafra B, Zangaglia R, et al. Spectrum of cognitive disorders in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Funct Neurol. 2016;31:143–7.
Tullberg M, Persson J, Petersen J, Hellström P, Wikkelsø C, Lundgren-Nilsson Å. Shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is cost-effective—a cost utility analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2018;160:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3394-7.
Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry. 1984;141:1356–64.
Morris JC, Heyman A, Mohs RC, et al. The consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1989;39:1159–65.
Hernández L, Montañez P, Gamez A, et al. Neuropsicología del envejecimiento normal. Rev Asoc Colomb Gerontol Geriatr. 2007;21:992–1004.
Borkowski J, Benton A, Spreen O. Word fluency and brain damage. Neuropsychologia. 1967;5:135–40.
Torralva T, Roca M, Gleichgerrcht E, et al. INECO Frontal Screening (IFS): A brief, sensitive, and specific tool to assess executive functions in dementia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15:777–86.
Saito M, Nishio Y, Kanno S, et al. Cognitive profile of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2011;1:202–11.
Bugalho P, Alves L, Miguel R, et al. Profile of cognitive dysfunction and relation with gait disturbance in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;118:83–8.
Toma AK, Stapleton S, Papadopoulos MC, et al. Natural history of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Rev. 2011;34:433–9.
Williams MA, Relkin NR. Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Clin Pract. 2013;3:375–85.
Marmarou A, Bergsneider M, Klinge P, Relkin N, Black PML. INPH guidelines, part III: The value of supplemental prognostic tests for the preoperative assessment of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000168184.01002.60.
Thakur SK, Serulle Y, Miskin NP, Rusinek H, Golomb J, George AE. Lumbar puncture test in normal pressure hydrocephalus: Does the volume of csf removed affect the response to tap? Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(7):1456–60.
da Rocha SF, Kowacs PA, de Souza RK, et al. Serial tap test of patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus: impact on cognitive function and its meaning. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2021;18:22.
Matsuoka T, Akakabe M, Iida JI, et al. Changes in cognitive function scores after cerebrospinal fluid tap testing in patients with suspected idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2018;31:201–6.
Liouta E, Gatzonis S, Kalamatianos T, et al. Finger tapping and verbal fluency post-tap test improvement in INPH: its value in differential diagnosis and shunt-treatment outcomes prognosis. Acta neurochir. 2017;159:2301–7.
Picascia M, Zangaglia R, Bernini S, et al. A review of cognitive impairment and differential diagnosis in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Funct Neurol. 2015;30:217–28.
Iddon JL, Pickard JD, Cross JJ, et al. Specific patterns of cognitive impairment in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67:723–32.
Klinge P, Malloy P, Salloway S, et al. Outcome of shunt surgery for normal pressure hydrocephalus in patients with and without comorbid Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;4:850.
Hickman TT, Shuman ME, Johnson TA, et al. Association between shunt-responsive idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and alcohol. J Neurosurg. 2017;127:240–8.
Krauss JK, Regel JP, Vach W, et al. Vascular risk factors and arteriosclerotic disease in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus of the elderly. Stroke. 1996;27:24–9.
Golomb J, Wisoff J, Miller DC, et al. Alzheimer’s disease comorbidity in normal pressure hydrocephalus: prevalence and shunt response. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68:778–81.
Müller-Schmitz K, Krasavina-Loka N, Yardimci T, et al. Normal pressure hydrocephalus associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol. 2020;88:703–11.
Marra C, Piccininni C, Iacobucci GM, et al. Semantic memory as an early cognitive marker of Alzheimer’s disease: role of category and phonological verbal fluency tasks. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;81:619–27.
Pomeraniec IJ, Bond AE, Lopes MB, et al. Concurrent Alzheimer’s pathology in patients with clinical normal pressure hydrocephalus: correlation of high-volume lumbar puncture results, cortical brain biopsies, and outcomes. J Neurosurg. 2016;124:382–8.
Flanagan KJ, Copland DA, Chenery HJ, et al. Alzheimer’s disease is associated with distinctive semantic feature loss. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51:2016–25.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
The funding for this study was provided by Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.\
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dr. PM, Dr. FC, and Dr. CH had the idea and designed the study along with Dr. AG. Dr. MG and Dr. IM gathered the information. Dr. AG did the statistical analysis. Dr. JFR, Dr. DG and Dr. FH did the discussion along with Dr. PM. Dr. PM, Dr. IM and Dr. DJ wrote the remaining sections of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and conesnt to participate
This study was approved by the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá ethics review board prior to the start of the study. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
The study is a retrospective study. The procedures described in the Data Collection section correspond to the Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Clinical Care Center protocol, and they are not performed within the study. The protocol is included because it is during these procedures that verbal informed consent is obtained, and the information subsequently collected by the researchers, and used for the study, is recorded in the patient's medical history retrospectively. In other words, the described procedures are performed in the Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Clinical Care Center, and are independent of the study.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mayorga, P., Hurtado, C., Gempeler, A. et al. Cognitive changes after tap test in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus: a before-and-after study. Discov Psychol 4, 21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00135-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00135-4