Cost-Effectiveness of Two Decision Strategies for Shunt Use During Carotid Endarterectomy

Background: Arterial shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is essential in some patients because of insufficient cerebral perfusion during cross-clamping. However, the optimal diagnostic modality identifying these patients is still debated. None of the currently used modalities has been proved superior to another. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two modalities, stump pressure measurement (SPM) versus electroencephalography (EEG) combined with transcranial Doppler (TCD) during CEA. Methods: Two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing CEA with different intraoperative neuromonitoring strategies (SPM vs. EEG/TCD) were analyzed. Clinical data were collected from patient hospital records. Primary clinical outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Total admission costs were calculated based on volumes of healthcare resources. Analyses of effects and costs were adjusted for clinical differences between patients by means of a propensity score, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. Results: A total of 503 (239 SPM; 264 EEG/TCD) patients were included, of whom 19 sustained a stroke or died during admission (3.3 vs. 4.2%, respectively, adjusted risk difference 1.3% (95% CI −2.3–4.8%)). Median total costs were €4946 (IQR 4424–6173) in the SPM group versus €7447 (IQR 6890–8675) in the EEG/TCD group. Costs for neurophysiologic assessments were the main determinant for the difference. Conclusions: Given the evidence provided by this small retrospective study, SPM would be the favored strategy for intraoperative neuromonitoring if cost-effectiveness was taken into account when deciding which strategy to adopt

Positional brain deformation visualized with magnetic resonance morphometry

© 2010 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons

The historical discovery of macular edema

The occurrence of macular edema, or of intraretinal fluid in general, was largely unknown prior to the invention of the ophthalmoscope. One of the first reports on 'Retinitis in Glycosuria', a disease complex, which today would partly be described as diabetic maculopathy, was published in 1856 by Jaeger. His observations were confirmed less than twenty years later by Nettleship in London, and in 1875 Appolinaire Bouchardat from Paris described fluid and lipid accumulation in the macula which led--in his words--to a glucose induced amblyopia. The first pathophysiological hypotheses of fluid accumulation in the posterior pole were then put forward in 1882 by Tartuferi, who thought the edema represented swelling of photoreceptor sheaths. In 1896, the Frenchman Nuel coined the term 'oedeme maculaire' which he had observed in a retinitis pigmentosa patient. However, it was not until the end of the first World War, that the Swiss ophthalmologist Alfred Vogt observed macular edema in a variety of other ocular conditions such as iridocyclitiOFF macular edema to a macular hole. A quarter of a century later Bangerter coined the German term 'Zystoides Makulaodem', and in 1950, Hruby was the first to draw attention to the development of macular edema after cataract extraction. Three years later this was followed by Irvine's classical paper on cystoid macular edema after intra- and extracapsular cataract extraction which had been complicated by incarceration of the vitreous in the anterior segment with consecutive tugging on the macula. A decade later, the phenomenon of cystic fluid accumulation in the macula after cataract extraction was further characterised by Gass and Norton using fluorescein angiography. The ensuing years saw the emergence of new concepts regarding the blood-retinal barrier and the paramount role of its dysfunction in the development of macular edema