N EUROPSYCHIATRIC complications continue to be one of the major problems following open heart surgery, despite great improvements in operative and extracorporeal perfusion techniques.‘T2 There are wide variations in the reported incidence of cerebral dysfunction, ranging from 1% to 53%~.~-~ This variation may be related to the criteria selected and indicates that there is room for improvement in the monitoring methods used. Various types of EEG monitoring have been advocated and applied to monitor brain function in the operating room (OR), and particularly to assess the adequacy of cerebral function during clinical cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) procedures. ‘-lo There is no available means of noninvasive monitoring other than the EEG for detection of cerebral dysfunction during general anesthesia and CPB. Therefore, instead of debating whether we should use EEG monitoring during open heart surgery, we should ask, “Does this type of monitoring provide sufficient warning of inadequate cerebral circulation or of focal embolic phenomena to allow corrective measures that can result in prevention of postoperative cerebral dysfunction ?” Following careful review of published data and of our experience with the EEG, I am forced to conclude that the answer is “no.” Recent literature supporting the usefulness of intraoperative monitoring of the EEG during CPB has usually been anecdotal. In accordance with their observations and bias, the authors generally express a degree of enthusiasm, and there are only occasional notes of caution. If intraoperative monitoring of the EEG is to be of value in the OR for detection of cerebral dysfunction during CPB, however, several criteria must be satisfied. First, the entire brain is at risk and must be amenable to monitoring. Second, personnel and equipment must be available for correct recording and interpretation of the EEGs. Third, it is necessary to monitor brain dysfunction under hypothermia, anesthesia, and various forms of pharmacologic intervention. Fourth, corrective measures must be possible if and when changes in the EEG are found; and when corrective steps are taken, the benefit should outweigh the risk to patients whose EEGs indicate (correctly or falsely) that they will suffer deficits. Let us examine the first criterion, which concerns the relationship between electroencephalography and regional brain function. The EEG can record only the electrical activity arising from the cerebral cortex, thus limiting anatomic resolution of the EEG to the superficial brain structures. Deeper brain structures, including the brain stem, have little effect on the recorded EEG. Still, some authors go so far as to state that EEG activity correlates well with cerebral metabolism and regional cerebral blood flow (CBF), even when CBF and cerebral metabolic rate for oxygen (CMROJ measurements reflect total brain blood flow and oxygen consumption of the entire brain.” However, these relationships are not valid when the patient is experiencing hypoxic brain injury, has a tumor, is receiving certain anesthetics, or is asleep.12*i3 This clearly casts doubt on the value of intraoperative EEG monitoring. Most authorities would agree that the principal causes of diffuse cerebral damage are altered characteristics of CPB perfusion or the occurrence of a microembolism. However, there is no evidence that EEG monitoring is capable of differentiating between these problems. If a patient has a microembolism in some part of the brain, can the simplified EEG detect this problem, or is a more sophisticated EEG program required? How many leads are needed to pick up the microembolism? These questions are still unanswered. The second criterion concerns the availability of qualified personnel and equipment for
Read full abstract