INTRODUCTION: STA-MCA bypass is the “work horse” for cerebral flow augmentation that yields high rates of anastomosis patency. However, the persistence of no-flow due to insufficient local demand presents a challenge. Here, we assessed intraoperative real-time hemodynamics measured by ICG-based FLOW800 to characterize risk and predict patency prior to anastomosis, aiding surgeons in choosing the optimal recipient and anastomosis site. METHODS: A retrospective and exploratory data analysis of 39 patients were conducted using FLOW800 software to assess 4 regions of interest (proximal/distal recipient and adjacent/remote gyrus) for 4 hemodynamic parameters: speed, delay, rise-time, and time-to-peak. Medical records were used to classify patients into flow and no-flow groups based on immediate or long-term anastomosis patency. Pre-anastomosis hemodynamics were compared between the two groups via univariate and multivariate analysis. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify “high-risk” and “low-risk” groups for no-flow. RESULTS: 35 patients demonstrated immediate flow post-revascularization and were compared to 4 patients with immediate or long-term no-flow post-revascularization. No-flow groups had significantly greater Proximal Recipient Speed (238.3 ± 120.8) and Distal Recipient Speed (241.0 ± 117.0) than the flow group (138.5 ± 93.6; 142.1 ± 103.8, p < 0.05). Based on PCA, a “high-risk” group (n = 10) including no-flow patients was characterized by high flow speed, and a “low-risk” (n = 6) for opposite parameters. Patients with follow-ups in the “low-risk” group maintained robust flow (4/4), whereas patients with follow-up in the “high-risk" group demonstrated reduced or absent flow (5/7). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that high recipient speed measured intraoperatively elevates the risk of no patency or reduced flow, potentially due to reduced local demand. Continued FLOW800-based ROI metric analysis could guide intraoperative decision making of specific recipient and anastomosis site selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sangwon et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: