The effects of ventricular drainage on the intracranial pressure signal and the pressure reactivity index

Object Based on continuous monitoring of the pressure reactivity index (PRx), the authors defined individualized intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds by graphing the relationship between ICP and PRx. These investigators hypothesized that an “ICP dose” based on individually assessed ICP thresholds would correlate more closely with the 6-month outcome when compared with ICP doses derived by the recommended universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. Methods This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 327 patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Results Individualized thresholds were visually identified from graphs of PRx versus ICP; PRx > 0.2 was the cutoff. Intracranial pressure doses were then computed as the cumulative area under the curve above the defined thresholds in graphing ICP versus time. The term “Dose 20” (D20) was used to refer to an ICP threshold of 20 mm Hg; the markers D25 and DPRx were calculated similarly. Separate logistic regression models were fit with death as the outcome and each dose as the predictor, both alone and adjusted for covariates. The discriminative ability of each dose for mortality was assessed by receiver operating characteristic AUC analysis in which 5-fold cross-validation was used. A clearly identifiable PRx-based threshold was possible in 224 patients (68%). The DPRx (AUC 0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.87) was found to have the highest area under the curve (AUC) over both D20 (0.75, 95% CI 0.68–0.81) and D25 (0.77, 95% CI 0.70–0.83); in the cross-validation model, DPRx remained the best discriminator of mortality (DPRx: AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.68–0.89]; D20: 0.72 [95% CI 0.66–0.81]; and D25: 0.65 [95% CI 0.56–0.73]). Conclusions The authors explored the importance of different ICP thresholds for outcome by calculating patient-specific ICP doses based on the continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pressure reactivity. They found that these individualized doses of intracranial hypertension were stronger predictors of death than doses derived from the universal thresholds of 20 and 25 mm Hg. The PRx could offer a method that can be directed toward individualizing the ICP threshold.

Download Full-text

Der Low-Resolution-Pressure-Reactivity-Index (LPRx) ist mit dem Outcome nach Schädel-Hirn-Trauma assoziiert

Intensivmedizin up2date ◽

10.1055/a-1284-2936 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 17 (01) ◽

pp. 7-7

Keyword(s):

Reactivity Index ◽

Low Resolution ◽

Pressure Reactivity Index ◽

Pressure Reactivity

Download Full-text

Short pressure reactivity index versus long pressure reactivity index in the management of traumatic brain injury

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/2014.10.jns14602 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 122 (3) ◽

pp. 588-594 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Erhard W. Lang ◽

Magdalena Kasprowicz ◽

Peter Smielewski ◽

Edgar Santos ◽

John Pickard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Brain Injury ◽

Outcome Prediction ◽

Fatal Outcome ◽

Reactivity Index ◽

Pressure Reactivity Index ◽

Arterial Blood ◽

Pressure Reactivity ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Spearman Test

OBJECT The pressure reactivity index (PRx) correlates with outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is used to calculate optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt). The PRx is a correlation coefficient between slow, spontaneous changes (0.003–0.05 Hz) in intracranial pressure (ICP) and arterial blood pressure (ABP). A novel index—the so-called long PRx (L-PRx)—that considers ABP and ICP changes (0.0008–0.008 Hz) was proposed. METHODS The authors compared PRx and L-PRx for 6-month outcome prediction and CPPopt calculation in 307 patients with TBI. The PRx- and L-PRx–based CPPopt were determined and the predictive power and discriminant abilities were compared. RESULTS The PRx and L-PRx correlation was good (R = 0.7, p < 0.00001; Spearman test). The PRx, age, CPP, and Glasgow Coma Scale score but not L-PRx were significant fatal outcome predictors (death and persistent vegetative state). There was a significant difference between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves calculated for PRx and L-PRx (0.61 ± 0.04 vs 0.51 ± 0.04; z-statistic = −3.26, p = 0.011), which indicates a better ability by PRx than L-PRx to predict fatal outcome. The CPPopt was higher for L-PRx than for PRx, without a statistical difference (median CPPopt for L-PRx: 76.9 mm Hg, interquartile range [IQR] ± 10.1 mm Hg; median CPPopt for PRx: 74.7 mm Hg, IQR ± 8.2 mm Hg). Death was associated with CPP below CPPopt for PRx (χ2 = 30.6, p < 0.00001), and severe disability was associated with CPP above CPPopt for PRx (χ2 = 7.8, p = 0.005). These relationships were not statistically significant for CPPopt for L-PRx. CONCLUSIONS The PRx is superior to the L-PRx for TBI outcome prediction. Individual CPPopt for L-PRx and PRx are not statistically different. Deviations between CPP and CPPopt for PRx are relevant for outcome prediction; those between CPP and CPPopt for L-PRx are not. The PRx uses the entire B-wave spectrum for index calculation, whereas the L-PRX covers only one-third of it. This may explain the performance discrepancy.

Download Full-text