F Altaf1, D E Griesdale2, L Belanger3, L Ritchie3, J Markez4, T Ailon5, M C Boyd5, S Paquette5, C G Fisher1, J Street1,6, M F Dvorak1,6, B K Kwon1,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Vancouver Spine Surgery Institute, Blusson Spinal Cord Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Division of Critical Care, University of British Columbia Critical Care Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Vancouver Spine Research Program, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Vancouver Spine Surgery Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective vasopressor cross-over interventional study Objectives: To examine how two vasopressors used in acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) affect intrathecal cerebrospinal fluid pressure and the corresponding spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP). SETTING: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Acute SCI patients over the age of 17 with cervical or thoracic ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS). A, B or C injuries were enrolled in this study. Two vasopressors, norepinephrine and dopamine, were evaluated in a 'crossover procedure' to directly compare their effect on the intrathecal pressure (ITP). The vasopressor cross-over procedures were performed in the intensive care unit where ITP, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were being continuously measured. The SCPP was calculated as the difference between MAP and ITP. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were enrolled and included in our analysis. There were 6 patients with AIS A, 3 with AIS B and 2 with AIS C injuries at baseline. We performed 24 cross-over interventions in these 11 patients. There was no difference in MAP with the use of norepinephrine versus dopamine (84±1 mm Hg for both; P=0.33). Conversely, ITP was significantly lower with the use of norepinephrine than with dopamine (17±1 mm Hg vs 20±1 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.001). This decrease in ITP with norepinephrine resulted in an increased SCPP during the norepinephrine infusion when compared with dopamine (67±1 mm Hg vs 65±1 mm Hg respectively, P=0.0049). CONCLUSION: Norepinephrine was able to maintain MAP with a lower ITP and a correspondingly higher SCPP as compared with dopamine in this study. These results suggest that norepinephrine may be preferable to dopamine if vasopressor support is required post SCI to maintain elevated MAPs in accordance with published guidelines.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective vasopressor cross-over interventional study Objectives: To examine how two vasopressors used in acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) affect intrathecal cerebrospinal fluid pressure and the corresponding spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP). SETTING: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Acute SCI patients over the age of 17 with cervical or thoracic ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS). A, B or C injuries were enrolled in this study. Two vasopressors, norepinephrine and dopamine, were evaluated in a 'crossover procedure' to directly compare their effect on the intrathecal pressure (ITP). The vasopressor cross-over procedures were performed in the intensive care unit where ITP, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were being continuously measured. The SCPP was calculated as the difference between MAP and ITP. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were enrolled and included in our analysis. There were 6 patients with AIS A, 3 with AIS B and 2 with AIS C injuries at baseline. We performed 24 cross-over interventions in these 11 patients. There was no difference in MAP with the use of norepinephrine versus dopamine (84±1 mm Hg for both; P=0.33). Conversely, ITP was significantly lower with the use of norepinephrine than with dopamine (17±1 mm Hg vs 20±1 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.001). This decrease in ITP with norepinephrine resulted in an increased SCPP during the norepinephrine infusion when compared with dopamine (67±1 mm Hg vs 65±1 mm Hg respectively, P=0.0049). CONCLUSION:Norepinephrine was able to maintain MAP with a lower ITP and a correspondingly higher SCPP as compared with dopamine in this study. These results suggest that norepinephrine may be preferable to dopamine if vasopressor support is required post SCI to maintain elevated MAPs in accordance with published guidelines.
Authors: Mark N Hadley; Beverly C Walters; Paul A Grabb; Nelson M Oyesiku; Gregory J Przybylski; Daniel K Resnick; Timothy C Ryken; Debbie H Mielke Journal: Clin Neurosurg Date: 2002
Authors: Jane L Di Gennaro; Christopher D Mack; Amin Malakouti; Jerry J Zimmerman; William Armstead; Monica S Vavilala Journal: Dev Neurosci Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: G L Clifton; S C Choi; E R Miller; H S Levin; K R Smith; J P Muizelaar; F C Wagner; D W Marion; T G Luerssen Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andrew J Johnston; Luzius A Steiner; Doris A Chatfield; Jonathan P Coles; Peter J Hutchinson; Pippa G Al-Rawi; David K Menon; Arun K Gupta Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ajay X Thomas; James J Riviello; Daniel Davila-Williams; Sruthi P Thomas; Jennifer C Erklauer; David F Bauer; Jon A Cokley Journal: Curr Treat Options Neurol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.972