Molly M McNett1, Mary Kay Bader2, Sarah Livesay3, Susan Yeager4, Cristina Moran5, Arianna Barnes6, Kimberly R Harrison7, DaiWai M Olson7. 1. Department of Nursing Research, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA. mmcnett@metrohealth.org. 2. Neurocritical Care, Mission Hospital, Mission Viejo, CA, USA. 3. Rush University College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Neurocritical Care, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Department of Nursing Research, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Surgical ICU, Mission Hospital, Mission Viejo, CA, USA. 7. Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is a key parameter in management of brain injury with suspected impaired cerebral autoregulation. CPP is calculated by subtracting intracranial pressure (ICP) from mean arterial pressure (MAP). Despite consensus on importance of CPP monitoring, substantial variations exist on anatomical reference points used to measure arterial MAP when calculating CPP. This study aimed to identify differences in CPP values based on measurement location when using phlebostatic axis (PA) or tragus (Tg) as anatomical reference points. The secondary study aim was to determine impact of differences on patient outcomes at discharge. METHODS: This was a prospective, repeated measures, multi-site national trial. Adult ICU patients with neurological injury necessitating ICP and CPP monitoring were consecutively enrolled from seven sites. Daily MAP/ICP/CPP values were gathered with the arterial transducer at the PA, followed by the Tg as anatomical reference points. RESULTS: A total of 136 subjects were enrolled, resulting in 324 paired observations. There were significant differences for CPP when comparing values obtained at PA and Tg reference points (p < 0.000). Differences remained significant in repeated measures model when controlling for clinical factors (mean CPP-PA = 80.77, mean CPP-Tg = 70.61, p < 0.000). When categorizing CPP as binary endpoint, 18.8% of values were identified as adequate with PA values, yet inadequate with CPP values measured at the Tg. CONCLUSION: Findings identify numerical differences for CPP based on anatomical reference location and highlight importance of a standard reference point for both clinical practice and future trials to limit practice variations and heterogeneity of findings.
BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is a key parameter in management of brain injury with suspected impaired cerebral autoregulation. CPP is calculated by subtracting intracranial pressure (ICP) from mean arterial pressure (MAP). Despite consensus on importance of CPP monitoring, substantial variations exist on anatomical reference points used to measure arterial MAP when calculating CPP. This study aimed to identify differences in CPP values based on measurement location when using phlebostatic axis (PA) or tragus (Tg) as anatomical reference points. The secondary study aim was to determine impact of differences on patient outcomes at discharge. METHODS: This was a prospective, repeated measures, multi-site national trial. Adult ICU patients with neurological injury necessitating ICP and CPP monitoring were consecutively enrolled from seven sites. Daily MAP/ICP/CPP values were gathered with the arterial transducer at the PA, followed by the Tg as anatomical reference points. RESULTS: A total of 136 subjects were enrolled, resulting in 324 paired observations. There were significant differences for CPP when comparing values obtained at PA and Tg reference points (p < 0.000). Differences remained significant in repeated measures model when controlling for clinical factors (mean CPP-PA = 80.77, mean CPP-Tg = 70.61, p < 0.000). When categorizing CPP as binary endpoint, 18.8% of values were identified as adequate with PA values, yet inadequate with CPP values measured at the Tg. CONCLUSION: Findings identify numerical differences for CPP based on anatomical reference location and highlight importance of a standard reference point for both clinical practice and future trials to limit practice variations and heterogeneity of findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain injury; Cerebral perfusion pressure; Measurement; Neurocritical care
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: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jennifer A Kosty; Peter D Leroux; Joshua Levine; Soojin Park; Monisha A Kumar; Suzanne Frangos; Eileen Maloney-Wilensky; W Andrew Kofke Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Fabian Güiza; Geert Meyfroidt; Ian Piper; Giuseppe Citerio; Iain Chambers; Per Enblad; Pelle Nillson; Bart Feyen; Philippe Jorens; Andrew Maas; Martin U Schuhmann; Rob Donald; Laura Moss; Greet Van den Berghe; Bart Depreitere Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Marcella Balestreri; Marek Czosnyka; Peter Hutchinson; Luzius A Steiner; Magda Hiler; Piotr Smielewski; John D Pickard Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: DaiWai M Olson; Stefany Ortega Peréz; Jonathan Ramsay; Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao; Jose I Suarez; Molly McNett; Venkatesh Aiyagari Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.210