Vascular · 2022
Thrombosis or vasospasm: The utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring during TCAR.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Intagliata Alexander, Rountree Kaitlyn, Bath Jonathan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has become more prevalent as a treatment modality for carotid stenosis. Many centers perform TCAR without any adjunctive neuromonitoring, for example, somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG).
METHODS: We present a case of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with concomitant somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG) neuromonitoring in the setting of concerning intraoperative angiographic images.
RESULTS: TCAR was undertaken for a 58 year-old man presenting with symptomatic left carotid stenosis and right ICA occlusion. Based on his comorbidities, pre-existing conditions, and the need for dual antiplatelet therapy, TCAR was offered as an alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy. Intraoperatively, following stent delivery, no flow was appreciated through the carotid stent or distal ICA. Neuromonitoring remained stable and was reassuring for distal ICA spasm with no-reflow phenomenon. The patient tolerated the procedure well and has had no stent-related complications through 10 months of follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This case highlights the utility of neuromonitoring with TCAR as an adjunct to intraoperative decision-making in the setting of suspected internal carotid artery (ICA) vasospasm versus thrombosis after stent delivery.
METHODS: We present a case of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with concomitant somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG) neuromonitoring in the setting of concerning intraoperative angiographic images.
RESULTS: TCAR was undertaken for a 58 year-old man presenting with symptomatic left carotid stenosis and right ICA occlusion. Based on his comorbidities, pre-existing conditions, and the need for dual antiplatelet therapy, TCAR was offered as an alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy. Intraoperatively, following stent delivery, no flow was appreciated through the carotid stent or distal ICA. Neuromonitoring remained stable and was reassuring for distal ICA spasm with no-reflow phenomenon. The patient tolerated the procedure well and has had no stent-related complications through 10 months of follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This case highlights the utility of neuromonitoring with TCAR as an adjunct to intraoperative decision-making in the setting of suspected internal carotid artery (ICA) vasospasm versus thrombosis after stent delivery.