Chiara Robba1, Joseph Donnelly2, Rita Bertuetti3, Danilo Cardim2, Mypinder S Sekhon4, Marcel Aries2, Peter Smielewski2, Hugh Richards2, Marek Czosnyka2. 1. Neurocritical Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Box 1, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. kiarobba@gmail.com. 2. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. 3. Neurocritical Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Box 1, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many neurological diseases, intracranial pressure (ICP) is elevated and needs to be actively managed. ICP is typically measured with an invasive transducer, which carries risks. Non-invasive techniques for monitoring ICP (nICP) have been developed. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods of transcranial Doppler (TCD) assessment of nICP in an animal model of acute intracranial hypertension. METHODS: In 28 rabbits, ICP was increased to 70-80 mmHg by infusion of Hartmann's solution into the lumbar subarachnoid space. Doppler flow velocity in the basilar artery was recorded. nICP was assessed through three different methods: Gosling's pulsatility index PI (gPI), Aaslid's method (AaICP), and a method based on diastolic blood flow velocity (FVdICP). RESULTS: We found a significant correlation between nICP and ICP when all infusion experiments were combined (FVdICP: r = 0.77, AaICP: r = 0.53, gPI: r = 0.54). The ability to distinguish between raised and 'normal' values of ICP was greatest for FVdICP (AUC 0.90 at ICP >40 mmHg). When infusion experiments were considered independently, FVdICP demonstrated again the strongest correlation between changes in ICP and changes in nICP (mean r = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: TCD-based methods of nICP monitoring are better at detecting changes of ICP occurring in time, rather than absolute prediction of ICP as a number. Of the studied methods of nICP, the method based on FVd is best to discriminate between raised and 'normal' ICP and to monitor relative changes of ICP.
BACKGROUND: In many neurological diseases, intracranial pressure (ICP) is elevated and needs to be actively managed. ICP is typically measured with an invasive transducer, which carries risks. Non-invasive techniques for monitoring ICP (nICP) have been developed. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods of transcranial Doppler (TCD) assessment of nICP in an animal model of acute intracranial hypertension. METHODS: In 28 rabbits, ICP was increased to 70-80 mmHg by infusion of Hartmann's solution into the lumbar subarachnoid space. Doppler flow velocity in the basilar artery was recorded. nICP was assessed through three different methods: Gosling's pulsatility index PI (gPI), Aaslid's method (AaICP), and a method based on diastolic blood flow velocity (FVdICP). RESULTS: We found a significant correlation between nICP and ICP when all infusion experiments were combined (FVdICP: r = 0.77, AaICP: r = 0.53, gPI: r = 0.54). The ability to distinguish between raised and 'normal' values of ICP was greatest for FVdICP (AUC 0.90 at ICP >40 mmHg). When infusion experiments were considered independently, FVdICP demonstrated again the strongest correlation between changes in ICP and changes in nICP (mean r = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS:TCD-based methods of nICP monitoring are better at detecting changes of ICP occurring in time, rather than absolute prediction of ICP as a number. Of the studied methods of nICP, the method based on FVd is best to discriminate between raised and 'normal' ICP and to monitor relative changes of ICP.
Authors: Vivek S Tayal; Matthew Neulander; H James Norton; Troy Foster; Timothy Saunders; Michael Blaivas Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Susan L Bratton; Randall M Chestnut; Jamshid Ghajar; Flora F McConnell Hammond; Odette A Harris; Roger Hartl; Geoffrey T Manley; Andrew Nemecek; David W Newell; Guy Rosenthal; Joost Schouten; Lori Shutter; Shelly D Timmons; Jamie S Ullman; Walter Videtta; Jack E Wilberger; David W Wright Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Jorge A López-Magaña; Hugh K Richards; Danila K Radolovich; Dong-Joo Kim; Peter Smielewski; Peter J Kirkpatrick; John D Pickard; Marek Czosnyka Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: K L Holloway; T Barnes; S Choi; R Bullock; L F Marshall; H M Eisenberg; J A Jane; J D Ward; H F Young; A Marmarou Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Christian Zweifel; Marek Czosnyka; Emmanuel Carrera; Nicolas de Riva; John D Pickard; Peter Smielewski Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: R Mija; I Zubak; A Schuetz; M Glas; C Fung; S M Jakob; J Beck; W J Z'Graggen; Andreas Bloch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lorenzo Ball; Denise Battaglini; Chiara Robba; Danilo Cardim; Emanuela Moncalvo; Iole Brunetti; Matteo Bassetti; Daniele R Giacobbe; Antonio Vena; Nicolò Patroniti; Patricia R M Rocco; Basil F Matta; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Chiara Robba; Antonio Messina; Denise Battaglini; Lorenzo Ball; Iole Brunetti; Matteo Bassetti; Daniele R Giacobbe; Antonio Vena; Nicolo' Patroniti; Maurizio Cecconi; Basil F Matta; Xiuyun Liu; Patricia R M Rocco; Marek Czosnyka; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Danilo Cardim; C Robba; M Bohdanowicz; J Donnelly; B Cabella; X Liu; M Cabeleira; P Smielewski; B Schmidt; M Czosnyka Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.210