Cerebral monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy using a triple assessment technique

Abstract

Objectives: Selective shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is advocated to reduce shunt related stroke. Cerebral monitoring is essential for temporary carotid shunting. Many techniques are available for cerebral monitoring, however, none is superior to monitoring the patient's neurological status (awake testing) while performing the procedure under local anaesthesia (LA). Cerebral oximetry (CO) and trans-cranial Doppler (TCD) has previously been used to show the adequacy of cerebral circulation in patients undergoing CEA. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability of CO and TCD in predicting the need for shunting compared to the awake testing.

Methods: Patients scheduled for CEA under LA were included. Patients converted to general anaesthesia (GA) and patients with no TCD window were excluded from the study. The Somanetics INVOS(®) CO was used for ipsilateral cerebral monitoring in all patients, in addition to TCD and awake testing. The percentage fall in CO regional oxygen saturation (rSO(2)), and decline in the mean flow velocity (FVm) in TCD following carotid artery clamping recorded. A drop in rSO(2) of ≥20% or FVm of ≥50% was considered an indicator of cerebral ischaemia that may predict the need for carotid shunting. Patients only shunted based on awake testing.

Results: Forty-nine patients underwent triple assessment. The median clamp time was 24 min. 8/49 patients (16.3%) needed carotid shunting based on awake testing. In this group, six patients had ≥20% drop in rSO(2), and ≥50% drop in FVm. However, two patients had a non-significant drop in both rSO(2) and FVm (false negative). In the non-shunted group (41/49), one patient had a significant drop in rSO(2) (false positive) while 10/41 patients had a >50% drop in FVm. This represents sensitivity of 75%, and specificity of 97.5% for CO compared to sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 75% for TCD in prediction of shunting. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 85.7 and 95.2%, respectively for CO, compared to 37.5 and 93.9% for TCD.

Conclusions: TCD is less accurate than CO in predicting the need for carotid shunting during CEA. A combination of both methods does not add to the accuracy of detecting the need for carotid shunting.