A Randomized Trial of CT Fluoroscopy-guided Targeted Autologous Blood and Fibrin Glue Patching for Treatment of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks in Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension.
Phase: PHASE2
Conditions: Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks
Sponsor: Duke University

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A randomized trial of CT fluoroscopy-guided targeted autologous blood and fibrin glue 
patching for treatment of cerebrospinal fluid leaks in spontaneous intracranial hypotension 
 
NCT ID: NCT03276975 
Version Date: 10/26/2017 
 
 
 

 
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS (see Schema) 
Patient Selection 
 
Inclusion Criteria: Adult patients meeting International 
Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd Edition (ICHD-3) criteria for a 
diagnosis of SIH (Table 1) who have had a contrast-enhanced brain MRI 
and a myelogram confirming the presence of a CSF leak will be recruited 
from the Duke Radiology spine intervention clinic [25]. 
Exclusion Criteria: (a) recent (i.e., < 2 weeks) blood patch, (b) 
contraindication or inability to undergo the procedure, (c) inability to 
provide informed consent, (d) expected inability to complete follow-up 
assessment, (e) a contraindication to receiving contrast material 
(precluding an epidurogram), or (f) contraindication to receiving fibrin glue (i.e., allergy). We aim to recruit 148 
patients over 2 years. This number is based on the historical number of patients with SIH and confirmed CSF 
leaks treated at Duke, our sample size determination (see Statistics), and previously published studies.  
 
CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Blood and Fibrin Glue Patching 
 
We will employ a single-center, parallel, randomized, blinded, prospective design. Enrolled patients will 
be assigned to one of two treatment arms using a block randomization scheme: CT fluoroscopy-guided blood 
and fibrin glue patching targeted to the site of CSF leak or a simulated procedure without patching material. 
Baseline data will be collected including: (a) symptom profile and duration, (b) headache impact test (HIT-6), 
(c) EQ-5D (a measure of overall health status), and (d) work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) (see 
Outcomes). All procedures will be performed under CT fluoroscopy on the same scanner (see Resources). The 
location of injection for patients in both arms will be targeted to the site of the CSF leak identified on prior 
imaging (e.g., CT or dynamic myelogram). All procedures will be performed by a board-certified radiologist with 
a CAQ in neuroradiology and at least six years of 
experience in CT fluoroscopy-guided spine 
injections. 
 
Patients in both arms of the study will be 
placed supine on the CT gantry table. Intravenous 
(IV) access will be obtained and sterile autologous 
blood will be acquired for the purposes of possible 
patching. A planning CT scan (120 kVp, automatic 
tube current modulation: 100 – 400 mA, 2.5 mm 
section thickness, gantry rotation time 0.5 seconds) 
will be obtained with z-axis limited to the area of 
interest. Acquired images will be used to plan a 
needle trajectory and approach to the location of 
the CSF leak for targeted patching using previously 
described techniques for CT fluoroscopy-guided 
epidural patching (e.g. a lateral approach trajectory 
to the neuroforaminal epidural space, an oblique 
interlaminar trajectory to the dorsal spinal canal 
epidural space, or an approach traversing the 
neuroforamen to reach the ventral epidural space) 
[14, 26-29]. The skin surface will then be marked, 
sterilized, draped, and anesthetized with 2% 
lidocaine.  At this point, a computer generated 
randomized treatment assignment will be delivered 
to the treating physician in an opaque sealed 
envelope, which will determine if the patient is 
treated with targeted blood and fibrin glue patching 
versus the simulated procedure. Patients and 
outcome assessors will remained blinded to the 
treatment assignment throughout the study. The 
treating physicians are unable to be blinded, as 
Table	1:	ICHD-3	SIH	Diagnos c	Criteria	
A)	Any	headache	fulfilling	criterion	C	
B)	Low	CSF	pressure	(<60	mm	H2O)	and	/	or	
evidence	of	CSF	leakage	on	imaging	
C)	Headache	has	developed	in	temporal	
rela on	to	the	low	CSF	pressure	or	CSF	
leakage,	or	has	led	to	its	discovery	
D)	Not	accounted	for	by	another	ICHD-3	
diagnosis	
Spontaneous	Intracranial	
Hypotension	
CT	or	dynamic	myelogram	
posi ve	for	CSF	leak	
Eligible	pa ents	consented	
Baseline:	HIT-6,	EQ-5D,	
WPAI	
Primary	Endpoint:	
HIT-6	at	1	month	
(reduc on	from		
>	56	to	<	49)	
Assess	for		
Adverse	Events	
MAJOR:	
• 
Stroke,	paralysis,	or	
other	permanent	
neurologic	deficit	
• 
Allergic	reac on	
• 
Hospitaliza on	/	ED	
visit	
	
MINOR:	(see	methods)	
Inclusion	Criteria:	
• 
Adult	
• 
Meets	ICHD-3	SIH	criteria	
• 
MRI	Brain	with	contrast	
• 
Definite	CSF	leak	on	
myelography	
• 
Baseline	HIT-6	>	56	
	
Exclusion	Criteria:		
• 
Contraindica on	or	inability	
to	undergo	procedure	
• 
Recent	blood	patch	(<	2	
weeks)	
• 
Inability	to	provide	informed	
consent	
• 
Expected	inability	to	
complete	follow	up	
• 
Contraindica on	to	contrast	
media	or	fibrin	glue	
CT	flu
o
r oscopy-guided	
targeted	blood	and	
fibrin	glue	patch	
CT	flu
o
r oscopy-guided	
targeted	saline	
injec on	
2	weeks:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
1	months:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
4	months:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
Randomiza on	
1	week	
immediate	
2	weeks:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
1	months:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
4	months:	HIT-6,	PGIC,		
EQ-5D,	WPAI	
Pa ent	Crossover	Allowed	
2	months	
Brain	MRI:		
SIH	findings	
Secondary	Endpoints:	
HIT-6	at	2	weeks	and	
4	months	
	
EQ-5D,	PGIC,	WPAI,	
Duke	Ques onnaire	
at	2	weeks,	1	month,	
4	months	

 
they will be aware of the type of patching material used. The effectiveness of patient blinding will be assessed 
using the Bang Blinding Index prior to discharge on the day of the procedure [30]. 
 
Targeted Patching of CSF Leaks with Blood and Fibrin Glue (Experimental Arm) 
 
For patients randomized to targeted patching with blood and fibrin glue, a 22-gauge 3.5 or 5 inch 
Quincke tip spinal needle will be advanced under intermittent CT fluoroscopic-guidance to the epidural space 
at the target location. On reaching the target, gentle aspiration will confirm absence of blood return. 
Approximately 0.2 mL of contrast material (iopamidol 200 mgI/mL; Isovue-M 200, Bracco Diagnostics Inc., 
Princeton, NJ) will then be injected to assess needle tip position and potential future spread of patching 
material. Intravascular injection will be excluded using a “double-tap” technique (i.e., 2 sets of CT fluoroscopic 
images: an initial image immediately after injection and a second image acquired 2-3 seconds later to assess 
for contrast material washout), as previously described [31]. After visual confirmation of correct needle tip 
position, a mixture of autologous blood (~1 mL) and fibrin glue (~1-3 mL) will be slowly injected. This process 
will be repeated for all planned needle placements. The number of needle placements and total volume of 
blood and fibrin glue will be at the discretion of the treating radiologist, but will be based upon: (a) the extent of 
spread of patching material, (b) mass effect on the thecal sac and neural structures, and (c) patient symptoms. 
On completion of the procedure, the patient will be observed for 2 hours in the radiology post-procedural unit. 
 
Simulated Patching Procedure (Control Arm) 
 
Patients randomized to undergo the simulated patching procedure will have the same experience as 
the patients in the experimental arm, as described above. This includes placement of an IV, acquisition of 
sterile blood for potential autologous patching (which will be discarded rather than used), a planning CT, all of 
the same needle placements that would have been performed if the patient were randomized to the 
experimental arm, and contrast injection for the epidurogram. However, instead of injection of blood and fibrin 
glue patching material through the needles, an equivalent volume of preservative free sterile saline will be 
injected (buffered intrathecal electrolyte/dextrose injection; Elliots B Solution, Lukare Medical, Scotch Plains, 
NJ). On completion of the procedure, the patient 
will be observed for 2 hours in the post-
procedural unit. 
 
Adverse Events  
 
Patients will be screened for adverse 
events immediately after the procedure as well 
as via phone call at one week post-procedure. 
While all adverse events will be recorded, the following will be considered major adverse events: stroke, 
paralysis, or other permanent neurologic deficit; allergic reaction; hospitalization or ED visit. Minor adverse 
events will include, but not be limited to: nausea and/or vomiting, symptomatic hypertension, vasovagal 
reaction, temporary weakness or sensory deficit, and urinary retention. 
 
Patient Outcome Measures and Crossover 
Headache Impact Test (HIT-6): A validated headache assessment tool with good internal consistency and test-
retest reliability that is designed to provide a global measure of headache impact in six domains [32]. Scores 
range from 36 (asymptomatic) to 78 (severe headache).  Score ranges: 36-49 (little or no headache impact), 
50-55 (some impact), 56-59 (substantial impact), and >60 (severe impact) [33, 34]. Prior studies have 
determined that the minimally important clinical difference between groups is 1.5 points for the HIT-6 [35]. 
EQ-5D: A standardized measure of health status that provides a simple, generic measure of health for clinical 
appraisal [36].  It is well-validated for health status measurement [37] and for quality-of-life in headache [34]. 
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC): A validated 7-point Likert-type scale assessing a patient’s overall 
impression of improvement after intervention [38, 39]. 
Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): A validated instrument with good test-retest reliability used 
extensively in health research [40, 41] that quantifies impairment in daily activities and work productivity [42].  
Crossover: Patients will be permitted to crossover to the other treatment arm two months after the procedure. 
 
Statistics 
Patient Outcome Analysis 

 
The change in HIT-6 from a pre-procedural score of > 56 (substantial or severe impact on life) will be 
considered for each group at each time point. Primary Endpoint (HIT-6 at 1 month): We will apply a two-sample 
t test, or in the cases of low counts and non-parametric data a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, to test the primary 
endpoint. Secondary Endpoints: The same analysis will be employed for all secondary endpoints at each time 
point. 
Sample Size Determination 
Based on previously acquired prospective outcomes data (unpublished), we will conservatively 
estimate a positive response rate of 50% in our experimental arm (see Preliminary Studies). In a meta-analysis 
examining sham procedures, our group found a maximum placebo response of 30% (Gu AP, unpublished). 
Therefore, to obtain a power of 0.8 (alpha 0.05) to detect superiority of the blood and fibrin glue patching 
group, assuming positive response rates of 50% for the patching group and 30% for the control group, we 
would need a total of 148 patients (74 patients in each arm).   
Interim Data Analysis 
 
An interim analysis will be performed of the first 74 patients by the biostatistician. All study participants 
and other personnel will remain blinded. Safety and efficacy will be evaluated using an O’Brien–Fleming 
stopping rule of p < 0.001 in order to evaluate for early evidence of treatment efficacy [43]. 
Crossover, Withdrawal, or Missing Data 
We will employ an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for this trial [44]. Patients that crossover between 
study arms, withdraw from the study, or for whom there is missing data will all be handled in the same manner: 
we will conservatively assume that no further benefit will be gained from the initial treatment. As such, the most 
recent available outcomes data will be extrapolated to all later time points for which no data are available.  
 
REFERENCES:  
 
1. 
Schievink WI. Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leaks and intracranial hypotension. JAMA 
2006; 295:2286-2296 
2. 
Beck J, Ulrich CT, Fung C, et al. Diskogenic microspurs as a major cause of intractable spontaneous 
intracranial hypotension. Neurology 2016; 87:1220-1226 
3. 
Sencakova D, Mokri B, McClelland RL. The efficacy of epidural blood patch in spontaneous CSF 
leaks. Neurology 2001; 57:1921-1923 
4. 
Cho KI, Moon HS, Jeon HJ, Park K, Kong DS. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: efficacy of 
radiologic targeting vs blind blood patch. Neurology 2011; 76:1139-1144 
5. 
Kantor D, Silberstein SD. Cervical epidural blood patch for low CSF pressure headaches. Neurology 
2005; 65:1138 
6. 
Kranz PG, Gray L, Taylor JN. CT-guided epidural blood patching of directly observed or potential 
leak sites for the targeted treatment of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. AJNR Am J 
Neuroradiol 2011; 32:832-838 
7. 
Patel MR, Louie W, Rachlin J. Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks of the lumbosacral spine: 
management with percutaneous fibrin glue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996; 17:495-500 
8. 
Schievink WI, Maya MM, Moser FM. Treatment of spontaneous intracranial hypotension with 
percutaneous placement of a fibrin sealant. Report of four cases. J Neurosurg 2004; 100:1098-
1100 
9. 
Franzini A, Messina G, Chiapparini L, Bussone G. Treatment of spontaneous intracranial 
hypotension: evolution of the therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. Neurol Sci 2013; 34 Suppl 
1:S151-155 
10. 
Franzini A, Messina G, Nazzi V, et al. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension syndrome: a novel 
speculative physiopathological hypothesis and a novel patch method in a series of 28 consecutive 
patients. J Neurosurg 2010; 112:300-306 
11. 
Elwood JJ, Dewan M, Smith JM, Mokri B, Mauck WD, Eldrige JS. Efficacy of epidural blood patch 
with fibrin glue additive in refractory headache due to intracranial hypotension: preliminary 
report. Springerplus 2016; 5:317 
12. 
Gladstone JP, Nelson K, Patel N, Dodick DW. Spontaneous CSF leak treated with percutaneous CT-
guided fibrin glue. Neurology 2005; 64:1818-1819 

 
13. 
Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ, Choudhury KR, Tanpitukpongse TP, Gray L. Time-Dependent Changes in 
Dural Enhancement Associated With Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension. AJR Am J Roentgenol 
2016:1-5 
14. 
Amrhein TJ, Befera NT, Gray L, Kranz PG. CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Blood Patching of Ventral CSF 
Leaks by Direct Needle Placement in the Ventral Epidural Space Using a Transforaminal Approach. 
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;  
15. 
Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ, Schievink WI, Karikari IO, Gray L. The "Hyperdense Paraspinal Vein" Sign: A 
Marker of CSF-Venous Fistula. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016; 37:1379-1381 
16. 
Kranz PG, Tanpitukpongse TP, Choudhury KR, Amrhein TJ, Gray L. Imaging Signs in Spontaneous 
Intracranial Hypotension: Prevalence and Relationship to CSF Pressure. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 
2016; 37:1374-1378 
17. 
Kranz PG, Luetmer PH, Diehn FE, Amrhein TJ, Tanpitukpongse TP, Gray L. Myelographic 
Techniques for the Detection of Spinal CSF Leaks in Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension. AJR 
Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206:8-19 
18. 
Kranz PG, Tanpitukpongse TP, Choudhury KR, Amrhein TJ, Gray L. How common is normal 
cerebrospinal fluid pressure in spontaneous intracranial hypotension? Cephalalgia 2015;  
19. 
Mihlon F, Kranz PG, Gafton AR, Gray L. Computed tomography-guided epidural patching of 
postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21:805-810 
20. 
Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ, Gray L. Rebound intracranial hypertension: a complication of epidural 
blood patching for intracranial hypotension. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35:1237-1240 
21. 
Kranz PG, Stinnett SS, Huang KT, Gray L. Spinal meningeal diverticula in spontaneous intracranial 
hypotension: analysis of prevalence and myelographic appearance. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013; 
34:1284-1289 
22. 
Kranz PG, Viola RJ, Gray L. Resolution of syringohydromyelia with targeted CT-guided epidural 
blood patching. J Neurosurg 2011; 115:641-644 
23. 
Capizzano AA, Lai L, Kim J, et al. Atypical Presentations of Intracranial Hypotension: Comparison 
with Classic Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016; 37:1256-1261 
24. 
Howard BA, Gray L, Isaacs RE, Borges-Neto S. Definitive diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid leak into 
the pleural space using 111In-DTPA cisternography. Clin Nucl Med 2015; 40:220-223 
25. 
International Headache Society. The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd 
edition. In: 
26. 
Hoang JK, Apostol MA, Kranz PG, et al. CT Fluoroscopy–Assisted Cervical Transforaminal Steroid 
Injection: Tips, Traps, and Use of Contrast Material. American Journal of Roentgenology 2010; 
195:888-894 
27. 
Wagner AL. Selective lumbar nerve root blocks with CT fluoroscopic guidance: technique, results, 
procedure time, and radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25:1592-1594 
28. 
Wagner AL, Murtagh FR. Selective nerve root blocks. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 5:194-200 
29. 
Kranz PG, Raduazo P, Gray L, Kilani RK, Hoang JK. CT fluoroscopy-guided cervical interlaminar 
steroid injections: safety, technique, and radiation dose parameters. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 
33:1221-1224 
30. 
Bang H, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25:143-
156 
31. 
Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ, Gray L. Incidence of Inadvertent Intravascular Injection during CT 
Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Steroid Injections. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2015; 
May;36(5):1000-1007 
32. 
Yang M, Rendas-Baum R, Varon SF, Kosinski M. Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) 
across episodic and chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 2011; 31:357-367 
33. 
Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache 
impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res 2003; 12:963-974 
34. 
Maasumi K, Thompson NR, Kriegler JS, Tepper SJ. Effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA Injection on 
Depression in Chronic Migraine. Headache 2015; 55:1218-1224 

 
35. 
Smelt AF, Assendelft WJ, Terwee CB, Ferrari MD, Blom JW. What is a clinically relevant change on 
the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. 
Cephalalgia 2014; 34:29-36 
36. 
Group E. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy 
(Amsterdam, Netherlands) 1990; 16:199-208 
37. 
Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 1996; 37:53-
72 
38. 
Scott W, McCracken LM. Patients' impression of change following treatment for chronic pain: 
global, specific, a single dimension, or many? J Pain 2015; 16:518-526 
39. 
Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology (DHEW Publication No. ADM 76–338). 
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1976 
40. 
Loeppke R, Hymel PA, Lofland JH, et al. Health-related workplace productivity measurement: 
general and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel. J Occup Environ 
Med 2003; 45:349-359 
41. 
Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC. A review of self-report instruments measuring health-
related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 
22:225-244 
42. 
Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and 
activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4:353-365 
43. 
O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35:549-
556 
44. 
Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2:109-112