The Lifescan™ EEG Monitor for Detection of Cerebral Ischemia in Carotid Endarterectomy: Case Reports, Prospective Study of Comparison Between Lifescan™ and Somatosensory Evoked Potential (SEP)

  • M. Kikura
  • S. Imamura
  • K. Ikeda
Conference paper


It is very difficult for anesthesiologists to assess cerebral well being during carotid endarterectomy. It has become important to evaluate and prevent cerebral ischemia by effective monitoring equipments. It has been reported that post-operative stroke is not uncommon and its rate is from 0.6% to 3.0% during carotid endarterectomy (1), and occurrence of EEG ischemic changes is more often and its rate is from 15% to 25% (2). For these reasons, there are several CNS monitoring which are available in the operating room today. There are Electroencephalography (EEG), (the Lifescan is included in this category), Somatosensory Evoked Potential (SEP), Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF), and Stump pressure. It has become important to evaluate which monitoring equipment is most effective for detecting ischemia during carotid endarterectomy. It has been repotted that ischemic changes of EEG have a high correlation with CBF(3). It is called critical regional CBF when EEG ischemic changes occurs, and critical CBF is from 18 to 20 ml/100 g/min in halothane anesthesia (3), 15 ml/100 g/min in enflurane anesthesia, and 10 ml/100 g/min in isoflurane anesthesia. We believe that it is reasonable to monitor EEG to detect and prevent ischemia by this reason. The Lifescan used aperiodic analysis for quantifying each EEG wave form, and maps each wave form in relation to its frequency, amplitude, and time of occurrence (4). Aperiodic analyzed each wave form are displayed within three dimensional box as color vectors, and as time advances, the display moves upward from the bottom of the box. Left box represents left hemisphere and right box represents right hemisphere.


Cerebral Blood Flow Cerebral Ischemia Carotid Endarterectomy Carotid Artery Stenosis Somatosensory Evoke Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (1).
    Ferguson, G.G.: Intra-operative monitoring and internal shunts: Stroke. 13: 287–289, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    Sundt, T.M., Sharbrough, F.W. et al.: Monitoring techniques for carotid endarterectomy. Clin. Neurosurg. 22: 199–213, 1975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    Sharbrough, F.W., Messick, J.M. et al.: Correlation of continuous electroencephalograms with cerebral blood flow measurements during carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 4: 674–683, 1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    Smith, N.Ty., Westover, J. et al.:An electroencephalographic comparison of alfentanil with other narcotics and with thiopental. J. Clin. Monit. 1: 236–244, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    Spackman, T.N., Faust, RJ. et al.: A comparison of aperiodic analysis of the EEG with standard EEG and cerebral blood flow for detection of ischemia. Anesthesiology. 66: 229–231, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    Grundy, B.L.: Intraoperative monitoring of sensory-evoked potentials. Anesthesiology. 58: 72–87, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    Kearse, L.A. et al.: Comparison between electroencephalography (EEG) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) during carotid endarterectomy. Anesthesiology. 71: No.3A, A393, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kikura
    • 1
  • S. Imamura
    • 1
  • K. Ikeda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care MedicineHamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsu, 431-31Japan

Personalised recommendations