Suppr超能文献

将脑血管自动调节点(CPPopt)的脑血管压力反应性(CPP)作为靶点真的能改善脑血管反应性吗?COGiTATE随机对照试验的二次分析。

Does Targeting CPP at CPPopt Actually Improve Cerebrovascular Reactivity? A Secondary Analysis of the COGiTATE Randomized Controlled Trial.

作者信息

Beqiri Erta, Tas Jeanette, Czosnyka Marek, van Kaam Ruud C R, Donnelly Joseph, Haeren Roel H, van der Horst Iwan C C, Hutchinson Peter J, van Kuijk Sander M J, Liberti Annalisa L, Menon David K, Hoedemaekers Cornelia W E, Depreitere Bart, Meyfroidt Geert, Ercole Ari, Aries Marcel J H, Smielewski Peter

机构信息

Brain Physics Laboratory, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Department of Neurology, Kepler University Hospital, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria.

出版信息

Neurocrit Care. 2025 Jun;42(3):937-944. doi: 10.1007/s12028-024-02168-y. Epub 2024 Dec 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The 'CPPopt-Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness' (COGiTATE) randomised controlled trial demonstrated the feasibility and safety of targeting an automated cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) tailored to optimize cerebrovascular autoregulation (CPPopt) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) requiring intracranial pressure management. The average values of the autoregulation index known as the pressure reactivity index (PRx) were not different between the intervention (CPP target = CPPopt) and control (CPP target = 60-70 mmHg) groups of the trial. This secondary analysis was performed to investigate whether: (1) in the intervention group, PRx was closer to PRxopt (PRx at CPPopt) values, indicating a more preserved reactivity, as opposed to in the control group; (2) in the intervention group, patients experienced lower hourly PRx when CPP was close to the CPPopt-based target.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 28 and 32 patients randomized to the control and intervention groups of the COGiTATE study, respectively. We compared hourly averaged ΔPRx (PRx minus PRxopt, where PRxopt is PRx at CPPopt) between the two groups, focusing on periods of globally preserved/homogeneous autoregulation (negative PRxopt). For each patient in the intervention group, PRx values in periods when ΔCPP (CPP minus CPPopt target) was between -5 and + 5 mm Hg were compared to values in periods when ΔCPP was outside this range.

RESULTS

The median ΔPRx was significantly lower in the intervention group for negative PRxopt (Mann-Whitney U-test, p < 0.001). For each patient in this group, the median PRx was lower in periods when CPP was close to the CPPopt-based target (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite no statistically significant difference in the grand mean PRx, our results suggest that targeting CPPopt does provide a way of improving cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with TBI, offering a rational intervention for trials that address this issue. We also bring insight into aspects of the PRx/CPP relationship that should be considered for autoregulation-guided management for future clinical protocols and trials design.

摘要

背景

“CPPopt引导治疗:目标有效性评估”(COGiTATE)随机对照试验证明了在需要颅内压管理的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者中,针对自动脑灌注压(CPP)进行调整以优化脑血管自动调节(CPPopt)的可行性和安全性。在该试验的干预组(CPP目标 = CPPopt)和对照组(CPP目标 = 60 - 70 mmHg)之间,作为压力反应性指数(PRx)的自动调节指数的平均值没有差异。进行这项二次分析是为了研究:(1)在干预组中,PRx是否比对照组更接近PRxopt(CPPopt时的PRx)值,表明反应性得到更好的保留;(2)在干预组中,当CPP接近基于CPPopt的目标时,患者每小时的PRx是否更低。

方法

我们分别分析了COGiTATE研究中随机分配到对照组和干预组的28例和32例患者的数据。我们比较了两组每小时的平均ΔPRx(PRx减去PRxopt,其中PRxopt是CPPopt时的PRx),重点关注全局保留/均匀自动调节(负PRxopt)的时期。对于干预组中的每位患者,比较了ΔCPP(CPP减去CPPopt目标)在 -5至 +5 mmHg之间的时期的PRx值与ΔCPP超出此范围的时期的PRx值。

结果

对于负PRxopt,干预组的ΔPRx中位数显著更低(曼-惠特尼U检验,p < 0.001)。对于该组中的每位患者,当CPP接近基于CPPopt的目标时,PRx中位数更低(威尔科克森检验,p < 0.001)。

结论

尽管总体平均PRx没有统计学上的显著差异,但我们的结果表明,针对CPPopt确实为改善TBI患者的脑血管反应性提供了一种方法,为解决该问题进行的试验提供了合理的干预措施。我们还深入了解了PRx/CPP关系的各个方面,这些方面在未来临床方案和试验设计的自动调节引导管理中应予以考虑。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验