Morten Andresen1,2, Joseph Donnelly3, Marcel Aries3,4, Marianne Juhler5, David Menon6, Pja Hutchinson3, Peter Smielewski3. 1. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK. andresen@gmail.com. 2. Clinic of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. andresen@gmail.com. 3. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Clinic of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Division of Anesthesiology, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of cerebral autoregulation is considered clinically useful due to its ability to warn against brain ischemic insults, which may translate to a relationship with adverse outcome. It is typically performed using the pressure reactivity index (PRx) based on mean arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. A new ORx index based on brain tissue oxygenation and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) has been proposed that similarly allows for evaluation of cerebrovascular reactivity. Conflicting results exist concerning its clinical utility. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed in 85 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). ORx was calculated using three time windows of 5, 20, and 60 min. Correlation coefficients and individual "optimal CPP" (CPPopt) were calculated using both PRx and ORx, and relation to patient outcome investigated. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients for all comparisons between PRx and ORx indicated poor association between these indices (range from -0.04 to 0.07). PRx was significantly lower in patients with good outcome (p = 0.01), while none of the ORx indices proved to be significantly different in the two outcome groups. Higher mortality related to average CPP < CPPopt was found regardless of which index was used to calculate CPPopt. CONCLUSION: In the TBI setting, ORx does not appear to correlate with vascular pressure reactivity as assessed with PRx. Its potential use for individualizing CPP thresholds remains unclear.
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of cerebral autoregulation is considered clinically useful due to its ability to warn against brain ischemic insults, which may translate to a relationship with adverse outcome. It is typically performed using the pressure reactivity index (PRx) based on mean arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. A new ORx index based on brain tissue oxygenation and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) has been proposed that similarly allows for evaluation of cerebrovascular reactivity. Conflicting results exist concerning its clinical utility. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed in 85 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). ORx was calculated using three time windows of 5, 20, and 60 min. Correlation coefficients and individual "optimal CPP" (CPPopt) were calculated using both PRx and ORx, and relation to patient outcome investigated. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients for all comparisons between PRx and ORx indicated poor association between these indices (range from -0.04 to 0.07). PRx was significantly lower in patients with good outcome (p = 0.01), while none of the ORx indices proved to be significantly different in the two outcome groups. Higher mortality related to average CPP < CPPopt was found regardless of which index was used to calculate CPPopt. CONCLUSION: In the TBI setting, ORx does not appear to correlate with vascular pressure reactivity as assessed with PRx. Its potential use for individualizing CPP thresholds remains unclear.
Authors: Ken M Brady; Jennifer K Lee; Kathleen K Kibler; R Blaine Easley; Raymond C Koehler; Donald H Shaffner Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Danila K Radolovich; Marek Czosnyka; Ivan Timofeev; Andrea Lavinio; Peter Hutchinson; Arun Gupta; John D Pickard; Peter Smielewski Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-01-30 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Martin Barth; Johannes Woitzik; Christel Weiss; Elke Muench; Michael Diepers; Peter Schmiedek; Hidetoshi Kasuya; Peter Vajkoczy Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.210
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: Luzius A Steiner; Marek Czosnyka; Stefan K Piechnik; Piotr Smielewski; Doris Chatfield; David K Menon; John D Pickard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Frederick A Zeiler; Erta Beqiri; Manuel Cabeleira; Peter J Hutchinson; Nino Stocchetti; David K Menon; Marek Czosnyka; Peter Smielewski; Ari Ercole Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Thomas W Johnson; Irfaan A Dar; Kelly L Donohue; Yama Y Xu; Esmeralda Santiago; Olga Selioutski; Mark A Marinescu; Ross K Maddox; Tong Tong Wu; Giovanni Schifitto; Igor Gosev; Regine Choe; Imad R Khan Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Frederick A Zeiler; Manuel Cabeleira; Peter J Hutchinson; Nino Stocchetti; Marek Czosnyka; Peter Smielewski; Ari Ercole Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 2.502