Key result
SSEP monitoring shows no significant advantage over EEG for detecting postoperative neurologic deficits.
Why the study?
Does SSEP monitoring compared to EEG monitoring accurately detect ischemia and predict postoperative neurologic deficits in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy?
Observational (n=64)
Does SSEP monitoring compared to EEG monitoring accurately detect ischemia and predict postoperative neurologic deficits in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 50%
SSEP monitoring demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for predicting postoperative neurologic deficits during carotid endarterectomy, performing comparably to EEG.
SSEP may be comparable to EEG for CEA monitoring; leaves open need for randomized trials before changing practice.
There is no consensus as to the most appropriate monitor for detecting ischemia during carotid endarterectomy. Accordingly, simultaneous 16-channel continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) and somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring were performed in 64 normocapnic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and anesthetized with isoflurane or halothane-nitrous oxide (supplemented with fentanyl). Recordings were obtained before, during, and for 15 min after cross-clamping of the internal carotid artery. Internal shunt was not used in any patient, regardless of EEG and SSEP changes. Significant amplitude reduction in the cortical component of the primary negative peak (greater than 50%) in SSEP occurred in 6 patients, and an increase in central conduction time (CCT) (greater than 1 ms) occurred in 5 patients. Major EEG changes occurred in 6 patients, 4 of whom also had SSEP changes. Two patients had transient neurologic deficits postoperatively, with both having SSEP changes (amplitude reduction greater than 50%), whereas one had EEG changes. Based on these observations, the relative sensitivity and specificity for EEG and SSEP (amplitude reduction greater than 50%) in detecting postoperative neurologic deficits were 50% and 92% for EEG and 100% and 94% for SSEP, respectively, differences that were not statistically significant. Regarding SSEP, the use of latency change (CCT) as a criterion was associated with a sensitivity of 0% (P = 0.046 from sensitivity of amplitude) and a specificity of 87% (P = 0.17 from specificity of amplitude).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lam et al. (1991) conducted an observational in Carotid endarterectomy (n=64). Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring vs. Electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring was evaluated on Sensitivity for detecting postoperative neurologic deficits. SSEP monitoring had 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity for detecting postoperative neurologic deficits, compared to 50% and 92% for EEG, though differences were not statistically significant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: