Keyhani Kourosh, Miller Charles C, Estrera Anthony L, Wegryn Tara, Sheinbaum Roy, Safi Hazim J
Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Texas Medical School Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan;49(1):36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.08.005. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
Use of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) monitoring during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery is controversial. This study evaluated the intraoperative use of SSEP and MEP during thoracoabdominal repair and assessed their role in decreasing the risk of spinal cord ischemia and paralysis.
We conducted paired SSEP and MEP monitoring to assess agreement between the methods and their ability to predict neurologic outcome in 233 patients. Changes in SSEP and MEP monitoring were classified as no change, reversible change, or irreversible change during the intraoperative period and by the conclusion of surgery. Agreement between the methods was computed using the Cohen kappa statistic. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were computed for each method on the immediate and delayed neurologic deficit.
Immediate neurologic deficit, determined immediately upon awakening from anesthesia and confirmed by a neurologist, occurred in eight of 233 (3.4%) patients. For any change (reversible plus irreversible), agreement between MEP and SSEP was relatively low (kappa = 0.53), despite being highly statistically significant (P < .001). MEP tended to overestimate SSEP for immediate neurologic deficit, demonstrating a 53% false-positive rate, compared with a 33% false-positive rate for SSEP (specificity ratio, 1.42; P < .0001). With irreversible change, agreement between the methods was 90% (kappa = 0.896, P < .0001). Only irreversible change was significantly associated with neurologic outcome (odds ratio, 21.9; P < .00001 for SSEP; 60.8, P < .0001 for MEP), but sensitivity and positive predictive values were low (37% and 33% for SSEP; 22% and 45% for MEP, respectively). Reversible changes in neurophysiologic monitoring were not significantly associated with immediate neurologic deficit. Negative predictive values for all negative evoked potential findings were >98% for immediate deficit. No evoked potential variables were associated with delayed deficit.
SSEP and MEP monitoring were highly correlated only when intraoperative changes were irreversible. Reversible changes were not significantly associated with immediate neurologic deficit. Irreversible changes were significantly associated with immediate neurologic deficit, and the findings were identical for SSEP and MEP in this variable, indicating that the more complex MEP measures do not add further information to that obtained from SSEP. Normal SSEP and MEP findings had a strong negative predictive value, indicating that patients without signal loss are unlikely to awake with neurologic deficit.
在胸主动脉和胸腹主动脉手术中使用运动诱发电位(MEP)和体感诱发电位(SSEP)监测存在争议。本研究评估了在胸腹主动脉修复术中SSEP和MEP的术中使用情况,并评估了它们在降低脊髓缺血和瘫痪风险中的作用。
我们对233例患者进行了配对的SSEP和MEP监测,以评估这两种方法之间的一致性及其预测神经学结果的能力。在手术期间和手术结束时,将SSEP和MEP监测的变化分类为无变化、可逆变化或不可逆变化。使用Cohen kappa统计量计算两种方法之间的一致性。计算每种方法对即刻和延迟神经功能缺损的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值。
从麻醉中苏醒后立即确定并经神经科医生确认的即刻神经功能缺损发生在233例患者中的8例(3.4%)。对于任何变化(可逆加不可逆),MEP和SSEP之间的一致性相对较低(kappa = 0.53),尽管具有高度统计学意义(P <.001)。对于即刻神经功能缺损,MEP倾向于高估SSEP,假阳性率为53%,而SSEP的假阳性率为33%(特异性比为1.42;P <.0001)。对于不可逆变化,两种方法之间的一致性为90%(kappa = 0.896,P <.0001)。只有不可逆变化与神经学结果显著相关(优势比,21.9;SSEP为P <.00001;MEP为60.8,P <.0001),但敏感性和阳性预测值较低(SSEP分别为37%和33%;MEP分别为22%和45%)。神经生理学监测的可逆变化与即刻神经功能缺损无显著相关性。所有阴性诱发电位结果对即刻缺损的阴性预测值均>98%。没有诱发电位变量与延迟缺损相关。
仅当术中变化为不可逆时,SSEP和MEP监测才具有高度相关性。可逆变化与即刻神经功能缺损无显著相关性。不可逆变化与即刻神经功能缺损显著相关,并且在该变量中SSEP和MEP的结果相同,这表明更复杂的MEP测量并未为从SSEP获得的信息增加更多内容。正常的SSEP和MEP结果具有很强的阴性预测价值,表明没有信号丢失的患者不太可能苏醒时出现神经功能缺损。