Cargando…

Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy

We compared the rate of selective shunt and pattern of monitoring change between single and dual monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A total of 121 patients underwent 128 consecutive CEA procedures. Excluding five procedures using internal shunts in a premeditated manner,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: UNO, Masaaki, YAGI, Kenji, TAKAI, Hiroyuki, OYAMA, Naoki, YAGITA, Yoshiki, HAZAMA, Keita, NAKATSUKA, Hideki, MATSUBARA, Shunji
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japan Neurosurgical Society 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905295/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33390558
http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmc.oa.2020-0286
_version_ 1783655082283237376
author UNO, Masaaki
YAGI, Kenji
TAKAI, Hiroyuki
OYAMA, Naoki
YAGITA, Yoshiki
HAZAMA, Keita
NAKATSUKA, Hideki
MATSUBARA, Shunji
author_facet UNO, Masaaki
YAGI, Kenji
TAKAI, Hiroyuki
OYAMA, Naoki
YAGITA, Yoshiki
HAZAMA, Keita
NAKATSUKA, Hideki
MATSUBARA, Shunji
author_sort UNO, Masaaki
collection PubMed
description We compared the rate of selective shunt and pattern of monitoring change between single and dual monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A total of 121 patients underwent 128 consecutive CEA procedures. Excluding five procedures using internal shunts in a premeditated manner, we classified patients according to the monitoring: Group A (n = 72), patients with single somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring; and Group B (n = 51), patients with dual SSEP and motor evoked potential (MEP). Among the 123 CEAs, an internal shunt was inserted in 12 procedures (9.8%) due to significant changes in monitoring (Group A 5.6%, Group B 15.7%, p = 0.07). The rate of shunt use was significantly higher in patients with the absence of contralateral proximal anterior cerebral artery (A1) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) than in patients with other types of MRA (p <0.001). Significant monitor changes were seen in 16 (12.5%) in both groups. In four of nine patients in Group B, SSEP and MEP changes were synchronized, and in the remaining five patients, a time lag was evident between SSEP and MEP changes. In conclusion, the rate of internal shunt use tended to be more frequent in patients with dual monitoring than in patients with single SSEP monitoring, but the difference was not significant. Contralateral A1 absence may predict the need for a shunt and care should be taken to monitor changes throughout the entire CEA procedure. Use of dual monitoring can capture ischemic changes due to the complementary relationship, and may reduce the rate of false-negative monitor changes during CEA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7905295
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Japan Neurosurgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79052952021-03-02 Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy UNO, Masaaki YAGI, Kenji TAKAI, Hiroyuki OYAMA, Naoki YAGITA, Yoshiki HAZAMA, Keita NAKATSUKA, Hideki MATSUBARA, Shunji Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) Original Article We compared the rate of selective shunt and pattern of monitoring change between single and dual monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A total of 121 patients underwent 128 consecutive CEA procedures. Excluding five procedures using internal shunts in a premeditated manner, we classified patients according to the monitoring: Group A (n = 72), patients with single somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring; and Group B (n = 51), patients with dual SSEP and motor evoked potential (MEP). Among the 123 CEAs, an internal shunt was inserted in 12 procedures (9.8%) due to significant changes in monitoring (Group A 5.6%, Group B 15.7%, p = 0.07). The rate of shunt use was significantly higher in patients with the absence of contralateral proximal anterior cerebral artery (A1) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) than in patients with other types of MRA (p <0.001). Significant monitor changes were seen in 16 (12.5%) in both groups. In four of nine patients in Group B, SSEP and MEP changes were synchronized, and in the remaining five patients, a time lag was evident between SSEP and MEP changes. In conclusion, the rate of internal shunt use tended to be more frequent in patients with dual monitoring than in patients with single SSEP monitoring, but the difference was not significant. Contralateral A1 absence may predict the need for a shunt and care should be taken to monitor changes throughout the entire CEA procedure. Use of dual monitoring can capture ischemic changes due to the complementary relationship, and may reduce the rate of false-negative monitor changes during CEA. The Japan Neurosurgical Society 2021-02 2020-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7905295/ /pubmed/33390558 http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmc.oa.2020-0286 Text en © 2021 The Japan Neurosurgical Society This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
UNO, Masaaki
YAGI, Kenji
TAKAI, Hiroyuki
OYAMA, Naoki
YAGITA, Yoshiki
HAZAMA, Keita
NAKATSUKA, Hideki
MATSUBARA, Shunji
Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title_full Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title_fullStr Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title_short Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
title_sort comparison of single and dual monitoring during carotid endarterectomy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905295/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33390558
http://dx.doi.org/10.2176/nmc.oa.2020-0286
work_keys_str_mv AT unomasaaki comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT yagikenji comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT takaihiroyuki comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT oyamanaoki comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT yagitayoshiki comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT hazamakeita comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT nakatsukahideki comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy
AT matsubarashunji comparisonofsingleanddualmonitoringduringcarotidendarterectomy