Literature DB >> 443755

Bolous versus steady-state infusion for determination of CSF outflow resistance.

H G Sullivan, J D Miller, R L Griffith, W Carter, S Rucker.   

Abstract

For rapid changes in cerebrospinal fluid volume an exponential relationship was demonstrated between CSF pressure and CSF volume in 15 cats. This relationship was valid over a CSF pressure range from 7 to 50 mm Hg and for acute increases of up to 9% to total CSF volume (approximately 13 ml for humans). Our data agree well with previous reports for the cat. A similar relationship has been shown in the dog and in humans. It has been claimed that, given the equations for CSF bulk flow and the exponential relationship between CSF pressure and CSF volume, one can calculate CSF outflow resistance by observing the decay of CSF pressure after a bolus injection into the CSF space. This claim was evaluated in an additional 18 cats. In these animals CSF outflow resistance calculated by the bolus method was compared with resistance calculated by a steady-state infusion method over the CSF outflow resistance range of 74 to 293 mm Hg/ml min-1. Resistance calculated by the bolus method underestimated resistance calculated by the steady-state method, and this underestimate grew larger with increasing resistance. The bolus technique is therefore not a valid method for determining CSF outflow resistance. The explanation offered for these results is that the decay of CSF pressure after a bolus injection into the CSF space occurs not only because of runoff of the injected volume of CSF but also because of "pressure relaxation" of the brain parenchyma around the CSF space. The phenomenon of pressure relaxation was not considered in developing the equation for calculation of CSF outflow resistance by the bolus technique. The time dependency of pressure relaxation allows for a fundamental element of hysteresis within the CSF space. A method of quantifying this element of hysteresis is suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 443755     DOI: 10.1002/ana.410050304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Neurol        ISSN: 0364-5134            Impact factor:   10.422


  9 in total

1.  ICP dependent changes of CSF outflow resistance.

Authors:  K Tychmanowicz; Z Czernicki; G Pawłowski; G Stepińska
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.216

2.  The contribution of arachidonic acid to the aetiology and pathophysiology of focal brain oedema; studies using an infusion oedema model.

Authors:  I R Whittle; I R Piper; J D Miller
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.216

3.  Assessment of cerebrospinal fluid compliance and outflow resistance: analysis of steady-state response to sinusoidal input.

Authors:  J D Charlton; R N Johnson; N E Pederson; J D Mann
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Conductance to outflow of CSF in normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Authors:  S E Børgesen
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 2.216

5.  Comparison of ventricular steady-state infusion with bolus infusion and pressure recording for differentiating between arrested and non-arrested hydrocephalus.

Authors:  J T Tans; D C Poortvliet
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  Absorption of the cerebrospinal fluid and intracranial compliance in an amphibian, Rana pipiens.

Authors:  H C Jones; C M Taylor
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  Large-Volume Intrathecal Administrations: Impact on CSF Pressure and Safety Implications.

Authors:  Vasily Belov; Janine Appleton; Stepan Levin; Pilar Giffenig; Beata Durcanova; Mikhail Papisov
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Interactions of brain, blood, and CSF: a novel mathematical model of cerebral edema.

Authors:  Omer Doron; Yuliya Zadka; Ofer Barnea; Guy Rosenthal
Journal:  Fluids Barriers CNS       Date:  2021-09-16

Review 9.  Assessment of cerebrospinal fluid outflow resistance.

Authors:  Anders Eklund; Peter Smielewski; Iain Chambers; Noam Alperin; Jan Malm; Marek Czosnyka; Anthony Marmarou
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 2.602

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.