Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy

Comparative Analysis of Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials and Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound for Cerebral Ischemia Detection in Carotid Endarterectomy: Insights from Network Meta-Analysis and Clinical Data

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the diagnostic efficacy of somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD) for monitoring cerebral tissue ischemia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using network meta-analysis and retrospective analysis of clinical data.

METHODS

For the meta-analysis, we conducted a comprehensive search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) from inception to September 2023, resulting in the inclusion of 52 relevant articles. Additionally, a retrospective study was conducted at our hospital, involving patients who underwent CEA surgery from July 2019 to July 2021.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis incorporated 52 articles, with ranking results indicating that SEP demonstrated superior performance in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy with surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of 99.9%, 93.8%, 96.6%, and 99.9%, respectively. Furthermore, TCD exhibited the highest sensitivity with a surface under the cumulative ranking value of 92.0%. A total of 190 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the retrospective study. The area under the curve for SEP's receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.787, compared to TCD's area under the curve of 0.606. SEP demonstrated a sensitivity of 66.67%, with a specificity of 90.76%, PPV of 19.05%, NPV of 98.82%, and accuracy of 90%. For TCD, the diagnostic performance measures included a sensitivity of 50.00%, specificity of 71.19%, PPV of 5.35%, NPV of 97.76%, and accuracy of 70.53%. The Fisher's exact test for sensitivity yielded a result of P = 1.000. The χˆ2 test for specificity resulted in χˆ2 = 22.863, with P < 0.001. Continuous correction χˆ2 tests for PPV and NPV showed χˆ2 = 2.005 (P = 0.157) and χˆ2 = 0.069 (P = 0.793), respectively. Additionally, the χˆ2 test for accuracy showed χˆ2 = 22.742, with P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

During CEA, SEP appears to provide a slightly more reliable indication of the ischemic condition in cerebral tissues compared to TCD.

History of Carotid Artery Reconstruction around the World and in Japan

Since ancient times, physicians have been aware of correlations between the carotid artery and consciousness; however, carotid stenosis was only recently identified as the cause of atherothrombotic ischemic stroke. In 1658, Wepfer described the first suggestion of a link between symptoms of cerebral arterial insufficiency and carotid pathology. In 1951, Fisher reported details of the symptoms and pathological findings and emphasized that cervical atheromatous lesions induced cerebral infarction with various symptoms. The beginning of carotid artery surgery was ligation of the carotid artery for neck or head injury, but surgeons were aware that this operation induced cerebral symptoms due to lack of blood supply. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was first reported by Eastcott et al. in 1954, and in Japan, Kimoto performed a successful CEA in 1962. In 1979, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was performed for patients with fibromuscular dysplasia, and then, carotid artery stenting (CAS) was first performed in 1989 by Mathias. In Japan, Kuwana et al. were the first to perform carotid PTA, in 1981, whereas Yamashita et al. performed the first CAS in 1997. Yoshimura et al. proposed staged carotid stenting to prevent hyperperfusion syndrome. Some issues in carotid reconstruction are still debated today, which include conventional (standard) CEA versus the eversion technique, CEA versus CAS versus medical therapy, and medical economic problems. In the future, we must continue to develop more effective, safer, and less expensive therapeutic methods to prevent carotid stroke, carrying on the efforts of the ancient peoples who pioneered this research.

Comparison of Methods for Monitoring Intra-operative Cerebral Perfusion in Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy with Selective Shunting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyse the influence of different methods of monitoring cerebral perfusion (MCP) on stroke, death, and use of intraluminal shunt during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted and registered in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42021246360). Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with > 50 participants that compared clinical outcomes for different MCP in patients undergoing CEA were included. Papers reporting one or a combination of two of the following MCPs were included in the analysis: awake testing (AT), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalography (EEG), somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), motor evoked potential (MEP), transcranial Doppler (TCD), and stump pressure (SP). A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a binomial likelihood function with a specified logit link for peri-operative stroke or death and shunting as outcomes. Near infrared spectroscopy was excluded due to the lack of studies that could be used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1 834 publications, 17 studies (15 cohort studies and two RCTs) including 21 538 participants were incorporated in the quantitative analysis. Electroencephalography was used in the largest number of participants (7 429 participants, six studies), while AT was used in the highest number of studies (10 studies). All monitoring modalities had worse outcomes with respect to stroke or death when compared with AT, with ORs ranging between 1.3 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.2 - 10.9) for SSEP + MEP and 3.1 (CrI 0.3 - 35.0) for patients monitored with a combination of EEG and TCD. However, the wide CrI indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the monitoring methods. Patients monitored with a combination of EEG and TCD had the lowest odds of being shunted, while SP had the highest odds of being shunted, also with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of high quality data on this topic in the literature. The present study showed no significant difference between monitoring methods investigated in the network meta-analysis.