Diagnostic impact of monitoring transcranial motor-evoked potentials to prevent ischemic complications during endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the incidence of intraprocedural motor-evoked potential (MEP) changes and to correlate them with intraprocedural ischemic complications and postprocedural neurological deficits in patients after endovascular intracranial aneurysm treatment. This study analyzed data from 164 consecutive patients who underwent endovascular coil embolization to treat intracranial aneurysms under transcranial MEP monitoring. We analyzed associations between significant changes in MEP defined as > 50% decrease in amplitude, and intraprocedural complications as well as postoperative neurological deficits. Factors associated with postprocedural neurological deficits were also assessed. The treated aneurysms were predominantly located in the anterior circulation (71%). Fourteen (9%) were located at perforators or branches that supplied the pyramidal tract. Intraprocedural complications developed in eight (5%) patients, and four of eight (50%) patients occurred postprocedural neurological deficits. Significant intraprocedural MEP changes occurred during seven of eight endovascular procedures associated with intraprocedural complications and salvage procedures were performed immediately. Among these changes, four transient MEP changes, recovered within 10 min, were not associated with postprocedural neurological deficits, whereas three permanent MEP changes were associated with postprocedural neurological deficits and mRS ≥ 1 at discharge. Aneurysms located at perforators/branches supplying the pyramidal tract, and permanent intraprocedural MEP changes were associated with postprocedural neurological deficits. We conclude that intraprocedural transcranial MEP monitoring can reliably identify ischemic changes and can initiate prompt salvage procedures during endovascular aneurysm treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Ares WJ, Grandhi RM, Panczykowski DM, Weiner GM, Thirumala P, Habeych ME, Crammond DJ, Horowitz MB, Jankowitz BT, Jadhav A, Jovin TG, Ducruet AF, Balzer J (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating neurological complications during endovascular aneurysm treatment. Oper Neurosurg 14:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opx104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bacigaluppi S, Fontanella M, Manninen P, Ducati A, Tredici G, Gentili F (2012) Monitoring techniques for prevention of procedure-related ischemic damage in aneurysm surgery. World Neurosurg 78:276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.11.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Byoun HS, Bang JS, Oh CW, Kwon OK, Hwang G, Han JH, Kim T, Lee SU, Jo SR, Kim DG, Park KS (2016) The incidence of and risk factors for ischemic complications after microsurgical clipping of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms and the efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials: a retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 151:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chung J, Lim YC, Suh SH, Shim YS, Kim YB, Joo JY, Kim BS, Shin YS (2014) Stent-assisted coil embolization of ruptured wide-necked aneurysms in the acute period: incidence of and risk factors for periprocedural complications. J Neurosurg 121:4–11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.JNS131662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Chung J, Park W, Hong SH, Park JC, Ahn JS, Kwun BD, Lee SA, Kim SH, Jeon JY (2018) Intraoperative use of transcranial motor/sensory evoked potential monitoring in the clipping of intracranial aneurysms: evaluation of false-positive and false-negative cases. J Neurosurg 130:936–948. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.8.JNS17791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Eli IM, Gamboa NT, Guan J, Taussky P (2018) Acute compartment syndrome as a complication of the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring needle electrodes. World Neurosurg 112:247–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Feng MT, Wen WL, Feng ZZ, Fang YB, Liu JM, Huang QH (2016) Endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms: to use stent(s) or not? Systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 93:271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Flechtenmacher N, Kammerer F, Dittmer R, Budde U, Michels P, Rother J, Eckert B (2015) Clopidogrel resistance in neurovascular stenting: correlations between light transmission aggregometry, VerifyNow, and the multiplate. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1953–1958. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4388

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Horiuchi K, Suzuki K, Sasaki T, Matsumoto M, Sakuma J, Konno Y, Oinuma M, Itakura T, Kodama N (2005) Intraoperative monitoring of blood flow insufficiency during surgery of middle cerebral artery aneurysms. J Neurosurg 103:275–283. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2005.103.2.0275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Horton TG, Barnes M, Johnson S, Kalapos PC, Link A, Cockroft KM (2012) Feasibility and efficacy of transcranial motor-evoked potential monitoring in neuroendovascular surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1825–1831. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3017

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kawaguchi M, Iida H, Tanaka S, Fukuoka N, Hayashi H, Izumi S, Yoshitani K, Kakinohana M, Group of the Safety Committee of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA) (2019) A practical guide for anesthetic management during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring. J Anesth 34:5–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-019-02698-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lee S, Kim DY, Kim SB, Kim W, Kang MR, Kim HJ, Lee KH, Yoo M, Choi BS, Kim JS, Lee SI, Kim HY, Jin SC (2019) Predictive value of neurophysiologic monitoring during neurovascular intervention for postoperative new neurologic deficits. Neuroradiology 61:207–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2115-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Li Z, Fan X, Wang M, Tao X, Qi L, Ling M, Guo D, Qiao H (2019) Prediction of postoperative motor deficits using motor evoked potential deterioration duration in intracranial aneurysm surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 130:707–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Liu AY, Lopez JR, Do HM, Steinberg GK, Cockroft K, Marks MP (2003) Neurophysiological monitoring in the endovascular therapy of aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:1520–1527

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Matsubara N, Miyachi S, Okamaoto T, Izumi T, Asai T, Yamanouchi T, Ota K, Oda K, Wakabayashi T (2013) Spinal cord infarction is an unusual complication of intracranial neuroendovascular intervention. Interv Neuroradiol 19:500–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/159101991301900416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Motoyama Y, Kawaguchi M, Yamada S, Nakagawa I, Nishimura F, Hironaka Y, Park YS, Hayashi H, Abe R, Nakase H (2011) Evaluation of combined use of transcranial and direct cortical motor evoked potential monitoring during unruptured aneurysm surgery. Neurol Med Chir 51:15–22. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.51.15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Neuloh G, Schramm J (2004) Monitoring of motor evoked potentials compared with somatosensory evoked potentials and microvascular Doppler ultrasonography in cerebral aneurysm surgery. J Neurosurg 100:389–399. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2004.100.3.0389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nwachuku EL, Balzer JR, Yabes JG, Habeych ME, Crammond DJ, Thirumala PD (2015) Diagnostic value of somatosensory evoked potential changes during carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 72:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Park H, Nakagawa I, Yokoyama S, Wada T, Motoyama Y, Kichikawa K, Nakase H (2019) Central retinal artery thromboembolism without ophthalmic artery occlusion during stent-assisted coil embolization of ophthalmic artery aneurysm. World Neurosurg 121:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Piotin M, Blanc R, Spelle L, Mounayer C, Piantino R, Schmidt PJ, Moret J (2010) Stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: clinical and angiographic results in 216 consecutive aneurysms. Stroke 41:110–115. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.558114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Shida Y, Shida C, Hiratsuka N, Kaji K, Ogata J (2012) High-frequency stimulation restored motor-evoked potentials to the baseline level in the upper extremities but not in the lower extremities under sevoflurane anesthesia in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 24:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0b013e318237fa41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Suzuki K, Kodama N, Sasaki T, Matsumoto M, Konno Y, Sakuma J, Oinuma M, Murakawa M (2003) Intraoperative monitoring of blood flow insufficiency in the anterior choroidal artery during aneurysm surgery. J Neurosurg 98:507–514. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2003.98.3.0507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Szelenyi A, Kothbauer K, de Camargo AB, Langer D, Flamm ES, Deletis V (2005) Motor evoked potential monitoring during cerebral aneurysm surgery: technical aspects and comparison of transcranial and direct cortical stimulation. Neurosurgery 57:331–338; discussion 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000176643.69108.fc

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Thomas B, Guo D (2017) The diagnostic accuracy of evoked potential monitoring techniques during intracranial aneurysm surgery for predicting postoperative ischemic damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 103:829–840 e823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yue Q, Zhu W, Gu Y, Xu B, Lang L, Song J, Cai J, Xu G, Chen L, Mao Y (2014) Motor evoked potential monitoring during surgery of middle cerebral artery aneurysms: a cohort study. World Neurosurg 82:1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Nakagawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The current study was approved by the ethical committee of our hospital (approval no. 2368).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all enrolled patients.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakagawa, I., Park, H., Kotsugi, M. et al. Diagnostic impact of monitoring transcranial motor-evoked potentials to prevent ischemic complications during endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurg Rev (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01338-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Motor-evoked potential monitoring
  • Coil embolization
  • Intracranial aneurysm
  • Ischemic complication