title: Cerebral oximetry does not correlate with electroencephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials in determining the need for shunting during carotid endarterectomy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Several reports in the literature have described the value of regional cerebral oximetry (rSO(2)) as a neuromonitoring device during carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The use of rSO(2) is enticing because it is simpler and less expensive than other neuromonitoring modalities. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of rSO(2) with electroencephalography (EEG) and median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) in determining when to place a shunt during CEA.
  
  
  METHODS
  From October 2000 to June 2006, 323 CEAs were performed under general anesthesia by six surgeons. Shunting was done selectively on the basis of EEG and SSEP monitoring under the auspices of an intraoperative neurophysiologist. All patients were retrospectively reviewed to see if significant discrepancies existed between EEG/SSEP and rSO(2).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-four patients (7.4%) showed significant discrepancies. Sixteen patients showed no significant EEG/SSEP changes, but profound changes occurred in rSO(2), and no shunt was placed. In seven patients there was no change in rSO(2) but a profound change occurred in EEG/SSEP, and shunts were placed. In one patient early in the series, the EEG and SSEP were unchanged but the rSO(2) dropped precipitously, and a shunt was placed. In the 299 patients who showed no discrepancies, 285 were not shunted and 14 required a shunt. Two strokes occurred in the entire series (0.6%), none intraoperatively. Shunts were placed in 23 patients (7%). The sensitivity of rSO(2) compared with EEG/SSEP was 68%, and the specificity was 94%. This gave a positive-predictive value of 47% and a negative-predictive value of 98%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Relying on rSO(2) alone for selective shunting is potentially dangerous and might have led to intraoperative ischemic strokes in seven patients and the unnecessary use of shunts in at least 16 patients in this series. The use of rSO(2) adds nothing to the information already provided by EEG and SSEP in determining when to place a shunt during CEA.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical Education, Orlando Regional Healthcare, Orlando, Florida, USA. mark.friedell@orhs.org
authors.forename: Mark L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Friedell
authors.forename: Jason M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Clark
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Graham
authors.forename: Michael R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Isley
authors.forename: Xiao-Feng
authors.initials: XF
authors.lastname: Zhang
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical; D002545:Brain Ischemia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology; D016893:Carotid Stenosis / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D002560:Cerebrovascular Circulation; D004569:Electroencephalography; D016894:Endarterectomy, Carotid / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005073:Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008475:Median Nerve / Q000503:physiopathology; D008875:Middle Aged; D016343:Monitoring, Intraoperative / Q000379:methods*; D010092:Oximetry; D018579:Patient Selection; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014656:Vascular Surgical Procedures