Can NIRS be a surrogate indicator of elective shunt in carotid endarterectomy? A single-center observational retrospective study says no.

BACKGROUND: Neuromonitoring during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) under general anesthesia is desirable and may be useful for preventing brain ischemia, but the selection of the most appropriate method remains controversial. PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) compared to multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in indicating elective shunts and predicting postoperative neurological status. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study including 86 consecutive patients with CEA under general anesthesia. NIRS and multimodality IONM were performed during the procedure. IONM included electroencephalography (EEG), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated for each neuromonitoring modality. RESULTS: NIRS presented a sensitivity and a specificity for detecting brain ischemia of 77.7% and 89.6%, respectively (PPV = 46.6% and NPV = 97.2%). In contrast, a 100% sensitivity and specificity for multimodality IONM was determined (PPV and NPV = 100%). No significant difference (in demographical or clinical data) between "true positive" and "false-positive" patients was identified. Among the methods included in multimodality IONM, EEG showed the best results for predicting postoperative outcome after CEA (PPV and NPV=100%). CONCLUSION: NIRS is inferior to multimodality IONM in detecting brain ischemia and predicting postoperative neurological status during CEA under general anesthesia.

Anaesthesia and multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring in carotid endarterectomy. Chronological evolution and effects on intraoperative neurophysiology.

Contingency data was retrospectively collected to evaluate the historical and current ability to provide multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during carotid endarterectomy under two conditions: total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and low dose halogenated anaesthesia (SEVO). 229 patients were monitored during carotid endarterectomy procedures under general anaesthesia between 2012 and 2020. 121 Patients were monitored with SEVO at a minimum alveolar concentration less than 0.7 and 108 were monitored using TIVA, according to common anaesthetic practice standards in our hospital across the years. Multimodality IONM was established with electroencephalography, somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials. As compared to TIVA, patients monitored with SEVO showed significantly higher motor evoked potential thresholds (313.52 ± 77.74 SEVO and 218.93 V ± 103.2 V TIVA p < 0.05) and lower reproducibility. Electroencephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials showed no significant differences among the groups. When using SEVO, multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during carotid endarterectomy could mask or miss a motor isolated change in patients in spite of low dose minimum alveolar concentration and of apparently adequate electroencephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring. Given these difficulties, we believe the chronological transfer to TIVA could have improved our ability to establish multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during carotid endarterectomy in recent times.