OBJECTIVE: The intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) is routinely used in the preoperative workup of patients with epilepsy. We previously reported dissections and seizures as complications of this procedure and now have reviewed our cohort for additional complications associated with the IAP. METHODS: Charts of 677 consecutive patients were reviewed for complications during the IAP. RESULTS: Complications were observed in 74 patients (10.9%) and included encephalopathy (7.2%), seizures (1.2%), strokes (0.6%), transient ischemic attacks (0.6%), localized hemorrhage at the catheter insertion site (0.6%), carotid artery dissections (0.4%), allergic reaction to contrast (0.3%), bleeding from the catheter insertion site (0.1%), and infection (0.1%). Older patients were more prone to strokes and dissections, whereas younger patients more frequently experienced seizures. Use of amobarbital was associated with encephalopathy, whereas methohexital was related to seizures. CONCLUSION: The IAP bears the risk of minor and major complications in up to 11% of patients. Risks, benefits, and possible alternative options have to be considered when a patient is to undergo the IAP.
OBJECTIVE: The intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) is routinely used in the preoperative workup of patients with epilepsy. We previously reported dissections and seizures as complications of this procedure and now have reviewed our cohort for additional complications associated with the IAP. METHODS: Charts of 677 consecutive patients were reviewed for complications during the IAP. RESULTS: Complications were observed in 74 patients (10.9%) and included encephalopathy (7.2%), seizures (1.2%), strokes (0.6%), transient ischemic attacks (0.6%), localized hemorrhage at the catheter insertion site (0.6%), carotid artery dissections (0.4%), allergic reaction to contrast (0.3%), bleeding from the catheter insertion site (0.1%), and infection (0.1%). Older patients were more prone to strokes and dissections, whereas younger patients more frequently experienced seizures. Use of amobarbital was associated with encephalopathy, whereas methohexital was related to seizures. CONCLUSION: The IAP bears the risk of minor and major complications in up to 11% of patients. Risks, benefits, and possible alternative options have to be considered when a patient is to undergo the IAP.
Authors: Timothy M Ellmore; Michael S Beauchamp; Joshua I Breier; Jeremy D Slater; Giridhar P Kalamangalam; Thomas J O'Neill; Michael A Disano; Nitin Tandon Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bornali Kundu; Amy Penwarden; Joel M Wood; Thomas A Gallagher; Matthew J Andreoli; Jed Voss; Timothy Meier; Veena A Nair; John S Kuo; Aaron S Field; Chad Moritz; M Elizabeth Meyerand; Vivek Prabhakaran Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Anne M Findlay; Josiah B Ambrose; Deborah A Cahn-Weiner; John F Houde; Susanne Honma; Leighton B N Hinkley; Mitchel S Berger; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Heidi E Kirsch Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Ananth P Abraham; Maya Mary Thomas; Vivek Mathew; Karthik Muthusamy; Sangeetha Yoganathan; G Edmond Jonathan; Krishna Prabhu; Roy Thomas Daniel; Ari G Chacko Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 1.475