BACKGROUND: Individualizing arterial blood pressure (ABP) targets during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) based on cerebral blood flow (CBF) autoregulation monitoring may provide a more effective means for preventing cerebral hypoperfusion than the current standard of care. Autoregulation can be monitored in real time with transcranial Doppler (TCD). We have previously demonstrated that near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-derived regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rS(c)O(2)) provides a clinically suitable surrogate of CBF for autoregulation monitoring. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of a stand-alone "plug-and-play" investigational system for autoregulation monitoring that uses a commercially available NIRS monitor with TCD methods. METHODS: TCD monitoring of middle cerebral artery CBF velocity and NIRS monitoring were performed in 70 patients during CPB. Indices of autoregulation were computed by both a personal computer-based system and an investigational prototype NIRS-based monitor. A moving linear correlation coefficient between slow waves of ABP and CBF velocity (mean velocity index [Mx]) and between ABP and rS(c)O(2) (cerebral oximetry index [COx]) were calculated. When CBF is autoregulated, there is no correlation between CBF and ABP; when CBF is dysregulated, Mx and COx approach 1 (i.e., CBF and ABP are correlated). Linear regression and bias analysis were performed between time-averaged values of Mx and COx derived from the personal computer-based system and from COx measured with the prototype monitor. Values for Mx and COx were categorized in 5 mm Hg bins of ABP for each patient. The lower limit of CBF autoregulation was defined as the ABP where Mx incrementally increased to ≥0.4. RESULTS: There was correlation and good agreement between COx derived from the prototype monitor and Mx (r = 0.510; 95% confidence interval, 0.414-0.595; P < 0.001; bias, -0.07 ± 0.19). The correlation and bias between the personal computer-based COx and the COx from the prototype NIRS monitor were r = 0.957 (95% confidence interval, 0.945-0.966; P < 0.001 and 0.06 ± 0.06, respectively). The average ABP at the lower limit of autoregulation was 63 ± 11 mm Hg (95% prediction interval, 52-74 mm Hg). Although the mean ABP at the COx-determined lower limit of autoregulation determined with the prototype monitor was statistically different from that determined by Mx (59 ± 9 mm Hg; 95% prediction interval, 50-68 mm Hg; P = 0.026), the difference was not likely clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring CBF autoregulation with an investigational stand-alone NIRS monitor is correlated and in good agreement with TCD-based methods. The availability of such a device would allow widespread autoregulation monitoring as a means of individualizing ABP targets during CPB.
BACKGROUND: Individualizing arterial blood pressure (ABP) targets during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) based on cerebral blood flow (CBF) autoregulation monitoring may provide a more effective means for preventing cerebral hypoperfusion than the current standard of care. Autoregulation can be monitored in real time with transcranial Doppler (TCD). We have previously demonstrated that near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-derived regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rS(c)O(2)) provides a clinically suitable surrogate of CBF for autoregulation monitoring. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of a stand-alone "plug-and-play" investigational system for autoregulation monitoring that uses a commercially available NIRS monitor with TCD methods. METHODS:TCD monitoring of middle cerebral artery CBF velocity and NIRS monitoring were performed in 70 patients during CPB. Indices of autoregulation were computed by both a personal computer-based system and an investigational prototype NIRS-based monitor. A moving linear correlation coefficient between slow waves of ABP and CBF velocity (mean velocity index [Mx]) and between ABP and rS(c)O(2) (cerebral oximetry index [COx]) were calculated. When CBF is autoregulated, there is no correlation between CBF and ABP; when CBF is dysregulated, Mx and COx approach 1 (i.e., CBF and ABP are correlated). Linear regression and bias analysis were performed between time-averaged values of Mx and COx derived from the personal computer-based system and from COx measured with the prototype monitor. Values for Mx and COx were categorized in 5 mm Hg bins of ABP for each patient. The lower limit of CBF autoregulation was defined as the ABP where Mx incrementally increased to ≥0.4. RESULTS: There was correlation and good agreement between COx derived from the prototype monitor and Mx (r = 0.510; 95% confidence interval, 0.414-0.595; P < 0.001; bias, -0.07 ± 0.19). The correlation and bias between the personal computer-based COx and the COx from the prototype NIRS monitor were r = 0.957 (95% confidence interval, 0.945-0.966; P < 0.001 and 0.06 ± 0.06, respectively). The average ABP at the lower limit of autoregulation was 63 ± 11 mm Hg (95% prediction interval, 52-74 mm Hg). Although the mean ABP at the COx-determined lower limit of autoregulation determined with the prototype monitor was statistically different from that determined by Mx (59 ± 9 mm Hg; 95% prediction interval, 50-68 mm Hg; P = 0.026), the difference was not likely clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring CBF autoregulation with an investigational stand-alone NIRS monitor is correlated and in good agreement with TCD-based methods. The availability of such a device would allow widespread autoregulation monitoring as a means of individualizing ABP targets during CPB.
Authors: Christian Zweifel; Gianluca Castellani; Marek Czosnyka; Adel Helmy; Anne Manktelow; Emmanuel Carrera; Kenneth M Brady; Peter J A Hutchinson; David K Menon; John D Pickard; Peter Smielewski Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Kenneth Brady; Brijen Joshi; Christian Zweifel; Peter Smielewski; Marek Czosnyka; R Blaine Easley; Charles W Hogue Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christian Zweifel; Gianluca Castellani; Marek Czosnyka; Emmanuel Carrera; Kenneth M Brady; Peter J Kirkpatrick; John D Pickard; Peter Smielewski Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Viachaslau M Barodka; Brijen L Joshi; Dan E Berkowitz; Charles W Hogue; Daniel Nyhan Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Jilles B Bijker; Wilton A van Klei; Teus H Kappen; Leo van Wolfswinkel; Karel G M Moons; Cor J Kalkman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Marcel J H Aries; Marek Czosnyka; Karol P Budohoski; Luzius A Steiner; Andrea Lavinio; Angelos G Kolias; Peter J Hutchinson; Ken M Brady; David K Menon; John D Pickard; Peter Smielewski Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Marek Czosnyka; Ken Brady; Matthias Reinhard; Piotr Smielewski; Luzius A Steiner Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Ken M Brady; Jennifer K Lee; Kathleen K Kibler; Piotr Smielewski; Marek Czosnyka; R Blaine Easley; Raymond C Koehler; Donald H Shaffner Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-08-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Juliette Selb; Kuan-Cheng Wu; Jason Sutin; Pei-Yi Ivy Lin; Parisa Farzam; Sophia Bechek; Apeksha Shenoy; Aman B Patel; David A Boas; Maria Angela Franceschini; Eric S Rosenthal Journal: Neurophotonics Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 3.593
Authors: Lucia Rivera-Lara; Romergryko Geocadin; Andres Zorrilla-Vaca; Ryan Healy; Batya R Radzik; Caitlin Palmisano; Marek Mirski; Wendy C Ziai; Charles Hogue Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Irfaan A Dar; Imad R Khan; Ross K Maddox; Olga Selioutski; Kelly L Donohue; Mark A Marinescu; Sunil M Prasad; Nadim H Quazi; Jack S Donlon; Emily A Loose; Gabriel A Ramirez; Jingxuan Ren; Joseph B Majeski; Kenneth Abramson; Turgut Durduran; David R Busch; Regine Choe Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Krishma Adatia; Romergryko G Geocadin; Ryan Healy; Wendy Ziai; Luciano Ponce-Mejia; Mirinda Anderson-White; Dhaval Shah; Batya R Radzik; Caitlin Palmisano; Charles W Hogue; Charles Brown; Lucia Rivera-Lara Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: David L McDonagh; Miles Berger; Joseph P Mathew; Carmelo Graffagnino; Carmelo A Milano; Mark F Newman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jacques T YaDeau; Richard L Kahn; Yi Lin; Enrique A Goytizolo; Michael A Gordon; Yuliya Gadulov; Sean Garvin; Kara Fields; Amanda Goon; Isabel Armendi; David M Dines; Edward V Craig Journal: HSS J Date: 2018-11-09