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

• Published in: Journal of clinical monitoring and computing Vol. 38; no. 3; pp. 631 - 638
• Main Authors: Plata-Bello, Julio, Pérez-Lorensu, Pedro Javier, Saponaro-González, Ángel, Darias-Delbey, Beneharo, Fariña-Jerónimo, Helga, Domínguez-Lorenzo, José María, Ucelay-Gómez, Roberto, González-Tabares, Enrique Francisco, Ibrahim-Achi, Zena, Guerrero-Ramírez, Christian Salvador, Padrón-Encalada, Carol Elizabeth, Pérez-Burkhardt, José Luis
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.06.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Brain; Critical Care Medicine; Electroencephalography; Evoked potentials; General anesthesia; Health Sciences; Infrared spectroscopy; Intensive; Ischemia; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Near infrared radiation; Original Research; Sensitivity; Statistics for Life Sciences; Near infrared spectroscopy; Brain ischemia; Carotid endarterectomy; Intraoperative neuromonitoring
• ISSN: 1387-1307; 1573-2614
• DOI: 10.1007/s10877-023-01114-1

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.