scholarly journals Non-Invasive Pressure Reactivity Index Using Doppler Systolic Flow Parameters: A Pilot Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick A. Zeiler ◽  
Peter Smielewski ◽  
Andrew Stevens ◽  
Marek Czosnyka ◽  
David K. Menon ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 162 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne A. Calviello ◽  
András Czigler ◽  
Frederick A. Zeiler ◽  
Peter Smielewski ◽  
Marek Czosnyka

Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 122 (3) ◽  
pp. 588-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erhard W. Lang ◽  
Magdalena Kasprowicz ◽  
Peter Smielewski ◽  
Edgar Santos ◽  
John Pickard ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document