Literature DB >> 24725709

Between-centre variability in transfer function analysis, a widely used method for linear quantification of the dynamic pressure-flow relation: the CARNet study.

Aisha S S Meel-van den Abeelen1, David M Simpson2, Lotte J Y Wang1, Cornelis H Slump3, Rong Zhang4, Takashi Tarumi4, Caroline A Rickards5, Stephen Payne6, Georgios D Mitsis7, Kyriaki Kostoglou7, Vasilis Marmarelis8, Dae Shin9, Yu-Chieh Tzeng10, Philip N Ainslie11, Erik Gommer12, Martin Müller13, Alexander C Dorado14, Peter Smielewski15, Bernardo Yelicich16, Corina Puppo16, Xiuyun Liu15, Marek Czosnyka15, Cheng-Yen Wang17, Vera Novak18, Ronney B Panerai19, Jurgen A H R Claassen20.   

Abstract

Transfer function analysis (TFA) is a frequently used method to assess dynamic cerebral autoregulation (CA) using spontaneous oscillations in blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV). However, controversies and variations exist in how research groups utilise TFA, causing high variability in interpretation. The objective of this study was to evaluate between-centre variability in TFA outcome metrics. 15 centres analysed the same 70 BP and CBFV datasets from healthy subjects (n=50 rest; n=20 during hypercapnia); 10 additional datasets were computer-generated. Each centre used their in-house TFA methods; however, certain parameters were specified to reduce a priori between-centre variability. Hypercapnia was used to assess discriminatory performance and synthetic data to evaluate effects of parameter settings. Results were analysed using the Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression. A large non-homogeneous variation was found in TFA outcome metrics between the centres. Logistic regression demonstrated that 11 centres were able to distinguish between normal and impaired CA with an AUC>0.85. Further analysis identified TFA settings that are associated with large variation in outcome measures. These results indicate the need for standardisation of TFA settings in order to reduce between-centre variability and to allow accurate comparison between studies. Suggestions on optimal signal processing methods are proposed.
Copyright © 2014 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cerebral autoregulation; Method comparison; Standardisation; Transfer function analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24725709      PMCID: PMC4155942          DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  13 in total

1.  Multivariate dynamic analysis of cerebral blood flow regulation in humans.

Authors:  R B Panerai; D M Simpson; S T Deverson; P Mahony; P Hayes; D H Evans
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  The frequency-dependent behavior of cerebral autoregulation.

Authors:  C A Giller
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Phase unwrapping via graph cuts.

Authors:  José M Bioucas-Dias; Gonçalo Valadão
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 10.856

Review 4.  Transfer function analysis for the assessment of cerebral autoregulation using spontaneous oscillations in blood pressure and cerebral blood flow.

Authors:  Aisha S S Meel-van den Abeelen; Arenda H E A van Beek; Cornelis H Slump; Ronney B Panerai; Jurgen A H R Claassen
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 2.242

5.  Identification of nonlinear biological systems using Laguerre expansions of kernels.

Authors:  V Z Marmarelis
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Autoregulation of cerebral blood flow in hypertensive patients. The modifying influence of prolonged antihypertensive treatment on the tolerance to acute, drug-induced hypotension.

Authors:  S Strandgaard
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1976-04       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Changes in human cerebral blood flow due to step changes in PAO2 and PACO2.

Authors:  I Ellingsen; A Hauge; G Nicolaysen; M Thoresen; L Walløe
Journal:  Acta Physiol Scand       Date:  1987-02

Review 8.  The I.A.N.A Task Force on frailty assessment of older people in clinical practice.

Authors:  G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; H Bergman; J E Morley; S B Kritchevsky; B Vellas
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.075

9.  Comparison of static and dynamic cerebral autoregulation measurements.

Authors:  F P Tiecks; A M Lam; R Aaslid; D W Newell
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Asymmetric dynamic cerebral autoregulatory response to cyclic stimuli.

Authors:  Rune Aaslid; Martin Blaha; Gill Sviri; Colleen M Douville; David W Newell
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 7.914

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Transfer function analysis of dynamic cerebral autoregulation: A white paper from the International Cerebral Autoregulation Research Network.

Authors:  Jurgen A H R Claassen; Aisha S S Meel-van den Abeelen; David M Simpson; Ronney B Panerai
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 6.200

2.  Continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular reactivity through pulse transit time and intracranial pressure.

Authors:  Xiuyun Liu; Kais Gadhoumi; Ran Xiao; Nate Tran; Peter Smielewski; Marek Czosnyka; Steven W Hetts; Nerissa Ko; Xiao Hu
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 2.833

3.  Revisiting human cerebral blood flow responses to augmented blood pressure oscillations.

Authors:  J W Hamner; Keita Ishibashi; Can Ozan Tan
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Effects of continuous positive airway pressure and isocapnic-hypoxia on cerebral autoregulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.

Authors:  Xavier Waltz; Andrew E Beaudin; Patrick J Hanly; Georgios D Mitsis; Marc J Poulin
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 5.  Review of studies on dynamic cerebral autoregulation in the acute phase of stroke and the relationship with clinical outcome.

Authors:  Ricardo C Nogueira; Marcel Aries; Jatinder S Minhas; Nils H Petersen; Li Xiong; Jana M Kainerstorfer; Pedro Castro
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 6.960

6.  Reliability and validity of the mean flow index (Mx) for assessing cerebral autoregulation in humans: A systematic review of the methodology.

Authors:  Markus Harboe Olsen; Christian Gunge Riberholt; Jesper Mehlsen; Ronan Mg Berg; Kirsten Møller
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 6.960

7.  Wavelet decomposition analysis is a clinically relevant strategy to evaluate cerebrovascular buffering of blood pressure after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Saqib Saleem; Diana Vucina; Zoe Sarafis; Amanda H X Lee; Jordan W Squair; Otto F Barak; Geoff B Coombs; Tanja Mijacika; Andrei V Krassioukov; Philip N Ainslie; Zeljko Dujic; Yu-Chieh Tzeng; Aaron A Phillips
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 4.733

Review 8.  Regulation of cerebral blood flow in humans: physiology and clinical implications of autoregulation.

Authors:  Jurgen A H R Claassen; Dick H J Thijssen; Ronney B Panerai; Frank M Faraci
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 37.312

9.  How can integrative physiology advance stroke research and stroke care?

Authors:  Jurgen Ahr Claassen
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 6.200

10.  A comparison of dynamic cerebral autoregulation across changes in cerebral blood flow velocity for 200 s.

Authors:  Martin W-D Müller; Mareike Osterreich
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.