2001Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Transcranial Doppler monitoring during carotid endarterectomy

A. Ross Naylor

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Introduction The introduction of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound in 1982 (Aaslid et al., 1982) was followed by a period of enthusiastic clinical application, particularly during carotid endarterectomy (Padayachee et al., 1986; Naylor et al., 1991). However, this initial enthusiasm was tempered by the publication of reports that its routine use was not associated with any significant reduction in the overall risk of stroke during carotid surgery (Bornstein et al., 1996). However, as with virtually every other monitoring modality, meaningful debate as to the role of TCD during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has primarily been limited by a failure to ask the right questions (Naylor, 1999). The main problem remains that most monitoring methods have concentrated solely on identifying those at greatest risk of suffering hemodynamic failure during carotid clamping and, thereafter, to develop criteria for the selective use of a shunt. The paradox, however, is that hemodynamic failure is a relatively rare cause of perioperative stroke (Krul et al., 1989), the commonest single cause being thromboembolism (Riles et al., 1994). Accordingly, should the stroke rate remain unchanged, following implementation of a policy of intraoperative TCD monitoring, there is then a tendency to simply discredit TCD without asking further critical questions (Naylor, 1999). In short, how can TCD be blamed for a stroke that was due to embolization of luminal thrombus following restoration of flow if no attempt was made to identify and remove the thrombus in the first place?

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Introduction The introduction of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound in 1982 (Aaslid et al., 1982) was followed by a period of enthusiastic clinical application, particularly during carotid endarterectomy (Padayachee et al., 1986; Naylor et al., 1991). However, this initial enthusiasm was tempered by the publication of reports that its routine use was not associated with any significant reduction in the overall risk of stroke during carotid surgery (Bornstein et al., 1996). However, as with virtually every other monitoring modality, meaningful debate as to the role of TCD during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has primarily been limited by a failure to ask the right questions (Naylor, 1999). The main problem remains that most monitoring methods have concentrated solely on identifying those at greatest risk of suffering hemodynamic failure during carotid clamping and, thereafter, to develop criteria for the selective use of a shunt. The paradox, however, is that hemodynamic failure is a relatively rare cause of perioperative stroke (Krul et al., 1989), the commonest single cause being thromboembolism (Riles et al., 1994). Accordingly, should the stroke rate remain unchanged, following implementation of a policy of intraoperative TCD monitoring, there is then a tendency to simply discredit TCD without asking further critical questions (Naylor, 1999). In short, how can TCD be blamed for a stroke that was due to embolization of luminal thrombus following restoration of flow if no attempt was made to identify and remove the thrombus in the first place?

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Introduction The introduction of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound in 1982 (Aaslid et al., 1982) was followed by a period of enthusiastic clinical application, particularly during carotid endarterectomy (Padayachee et al., 1986; Naylor et al., 1991). However, this initial enthusiasm was tempered by the publication of reports that its routine use was not associated with any significant reduction in the overall risk of stroke during carotid surgery (Bornstein et al., 1996). However, as with virtually every other monitoring modality, meaningful debate as to the role of TCD during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has primarily been limited by a failure to ask the right questions (Naylor, 1999). The main problem remains that most monitoring methods have concentrated solely on identifying those at greatest risk of suffering hemodynamic failure during carotid clamping and, thereafter, to develop criteria for the selective use of a shunt. The paradox, however, is that hemodynamic failure is a relatively rare cause of perioperative stroke (Krul et al., 1989), the commonest single cause being thromboembolism (Riles et al., 1994). Accordingly, should the stroke rate remain unchanged, following implementation of a policy of intraoperative TCD monitoring, there is then a tendency to simply discredit TCD without asking further critical questions (Naylor, 1999). In short, how can TCD be blamed for a stroke that was due to embolization of luminal thrombus following restoration of flow if no attempt was made to identify and remove the thrombus in the first place?

Key concepts: Transcranial Doppler, Carotid endarterectomy, Medicine, Stroke (engine), Cardiology, Radiology, Internal medicine, Carotid arteries

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Transcranial Doppler monitoring during carotid endarterectomy — Research Paper | ScholarLens