Petersen Nils H, Ortega-Gutierrez Santiago, Reccius Andres, Masurkar Arjun, Huang Amy, Marshall Randolph S
Neurocrit Care. 2014 Feb;20(1):60-8. doi: 10.1007/s12028-013-9949-4.
There is a growing interest in measuring cerebral autoregulation in patients with acute brain injury. Non-invasive finger photo-plethysmography (Finapres) is the method of choice to relate arterial blood pressure to changes in cerebral blood flow. Among acutely ill patients, however, peripheral vasoconstriction often limits the use of Finapres requiring direct intravascular blood pressure measurement. We evaluated how these two different forms of blood pressure monitoring affect the parameters of dynamic cerebral autoregulation (DCA).
We performed 37 simultaneous recordings of BP and cerebral blood flow velocity in 15 patients with acute brain injury. DCA was estimated in the frequency domain using transfer function analysis to calculate phase shift, gain, and coherence. In addition the mean velocity index (Mx) was calculated for assessment of DCA in the time domain.
The mean patient age was 58.1 ± 15.9 years, 80 % (n = 12) were women. We found good inter-method agreement between Finapres and direct intravascular measurement using Bland–Altman and correlation analyses. Finapres gives higher values for the efficiency of dynamic CA compared with values derived from radial artery catheter, as indicated by biases in the phase (26.3 ± 11.6° vs. 21.7 ± 10.5°, p = 0.001) and Mx (0.571 ± 0.137 vs. 0.649 ± 0.128, p < 0.001). Gain in the low frequency range did not significantly differ between the two arterial blood pressure methods. The average coherence between CBFV and ABP was higher when BP was measured with arterial catheter for frequencies above 0.05 Hz (0.8 vs. 0.73, p < 0.001).
Overall, both methods yield similar results and can be used for the assessment of DCA. However, there was a small but significant difference for both mean Mx and phase shift, which would need to be adjusted for during monitoring of patients when using both methods. When available, invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring may improve accuracy and thus should be the preferred method for DCA assessment in the ICU.
测量急性脑损伤患者的脑自动调节功能越来越受到关注。无创手指光电容积描记法(Finapres)是将动脉血压与脑血流变化相关联的首选方法。然而,在危重症患者中,外周血管收缩常常限制了Finapres的使用,需要直接进行血管内血压测量。我们评估了这两种不同形式的血压监测如何影响动态脑自动调节(DCA)参数。
我们对15例急性脑损伤患者同时进行了37次血压和脑血流速度记录。使用传递函数分析在频域中估计DCA,以计算相移、增益和相干性。此外,计算平均速度指数(Mx)以在时域中评估DCA。
患者平均年龄为58.1±15.9岁,80%(n = 12)为女性。我们使用Bland–Altman分析和相关性分析发现Finapres与直接血管内测量之间具有良好的方法间一致性。与桡动脉导管测量值相比,Finapres得出的动态脑自动调节效率值更高,这在相移(26.3±11.6°对21.7±10.5°,p = 0.001)和Mx(0.571±0.137对0.649±0.128,p < 0.001)的偏差中有所体现。两种动脉血压测量方法在低频范围内的增益无显著差异。当使用动脉导管测量血压时,对于频率高于0.05 Hz的情况,脑血流速度(CBFV)与动脉血压(ABP)之间的平均相干性更高(0.8对0.73,p < 0.001)。
总体而言,两种方法产生的结果相似,均可用于评估DCA。然而,平均Mx和相移存在小但显著的差异,在同时使用这两种方法监测患者时需要对此进行调整。如有条件,有创动脉血压监测可能会提高准确性,因此应成为ICU中DCA评估的首选方法。