Benefit of neurophysiologic monitoring for pediatric cardiac surgery

Background. Pediatric patients undergoing repair of congenital cardiac approved by the institutional review board, electroencephalography, transcranial Doppler ultrasonic measurement of middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity, and transcranial near-infrared cerebral oximetry were monitored in 250 patients, An interventional algorithm was used to detect and correct specific deficiencies in cerebral perfusion or oxygenation or to increase cerebral tolerance to ischemia or hypoxia. Results: Noteworthy changes in brain perfusion or metabolism were observed in 176 of 250 (70%) patients, Intervention that altered patient management was initially deemed appropriate in 130 of 176 (74%) patients with neurophysiologic changes, Obvious neurologic sequelae (i.e., seizure, movement, vision or speech disorder) occurred in five of 74 (7%) patients without noteworthy change, seven of 130 (6%) patients with intervention, and 12 of 46 (26%) patients without intervention (p = 0.001), Survivors' median length of stay was 6 days in the no-change and intervention groups but 9 days in the no-intervention group, In addition, the percentage of patients in the no-intervention group discharged from the hospital within 1 week (32%) was significantly less than that in either the intervention (51%, p = 0.05) or no-change (58%, p = 0.01) groups, On the basis of an estimated hospital neurologic complication cost of $1500 per day, break-even analysis justified a hospital expenditure for neurophysiologic monitoring of $2142 per case, Conclusions: Interventions based on neurophysiologic monitoring appear to decrease the incidence of postoperative neurologic sequelae and reduce the length of stay, Inasmuch as the break-even cost for neurophysiologic monitoring is more than four times the actual average charge, both patients and hospital may profit from this service. Because this study was not a truly randomized clinical trial, unintentional statistical bias may have occurred and caution is urged in interpreting the magnitude of apparent intergroup outcome differences.