Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K..
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K..
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Feb;162(2):337-344. doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-04169-9. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
Two transcranial Doppler (TCD) estimators of cerebral arterial blood volume (CaBV) coexist: continuous outflow of arterial blood outside the cranium through a low-pulsatile venous system (continuous flow forward, CFF) and pulsatile outflow through regulating arterioles (pulsatile flow forward, PFF). We calculated non-invasive equivalents of the pressure reactivity index (PRx) and the pulse amplitude index PAx with slow waves of mean CaBV and its pulse amplitude.
About 273 individual TBI patients were retrospectively reviewed. PRx is the correlation coefficient between 30 samples of 10-second averages of ICP and mean ABP. PAx is the correlation coefficient between 30 samples of 10-second averages of the amplitude of ICP (AMP, derived from Fourier analysis of the raw full waveform ICP tracing) and mean ABP. nPRx is calculated with CaBV instead of ICP and nPAx with the pulse amplitude of CaBV instead of AMP (calculated using both the CFF and PFF models). All reactivity indices were additionally compared with Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) to verify potential outcome-predictive strength.
When correlated, slow waves of ICP demonstrated good coherence between slow waves in CaBV (>0.75); slow waves of AMP showed good coherence with slow waves of the pulse amplitude of CaBV (>0.67) in both the CFF and PFF models. nPRx was moderately correlated with PRx (R = 0.42 for CFF and R = 0.38 for PFF; p < 0.0001). nPAx correlated with PAx with slightly better strength (R = 0.56 for CFF and R = 0.41 for PFF; p < 0.0001). nPAx_CFF showed the strongest association with outcomes.
Non-invasive estimators (nPRx and nPAx) are associated with their invasive counterparts and can provide meaningful associations with outcome after TBI. The CFF model is slightly superior to the PFF model.
两种经颅多普勒(TCD)脑动脉血容量(CaBV)估算方法并存:通过低脉动静脉系统从颅外连续流出动脉血(连续前向血流,CFF)和通过调节动脉脉动流出(搏动前向血流,PFF)。我们使用平均 CaBV 及其搏动幅度的慢波计算了压力反应性指数(PRx)和脉搏幅度指数(PAx)的无创等效物。
回顾性分析了约 273 例 TBI 患者。PRx 是 ICP 的 30 个 10 秒平均值与平均 ABP 之间的相关系数。PAx 是 ICP 幅度(源自原始全波形 ICP 轨迹的傅里叶分析)的 30 个 10 秒平均值与平均 ABP 之间的相关系数。nPRx 是用 CaBV 代替 ICP 计算的,nPAx 是用 CaBV 的脉搏幅度代替 AMP(使用 CFF 和 PFF 模型计算)。所有反应性指数还与格拉斯哥结局评分(GOS)进行比较,以验证潜在的预后预测强度。
当相关时,ICP 的慢波在 CaBV 中的慢波之间表现出很好的一致性(>0.75);AMP 的慢波在 CFF 和 PFF 模型中均与 CaBV 脉搏幅度的慢波表现出很好的一致性(>0.67)。nPRx 与 PRx 中度相关(CFF 为 R=0.42,PFF 为 R=0.38;p<0.0001)。nPAx 与 PAx 的相关性稍强(CFF 为 R=0.56,PFF 为 R=0.41;p<0.0001)。nPAx_CFF 与结果的关联最强。
无创估算物(nPRx 和 nPAx)与侵入性对应物相关,并且可以为 TBI 后的结果提供有意义的关联。CFF 模型略优于 PFF 模型。