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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |