Cerebrovascular Pressure Reactivity Measures: Index Comparison and Clinical Outcome in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Treated According to an Intracranial Pressure-Focused Management: Rejection of the Null Hypothesis.

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurotrauma reports Pub Date : 2023-12-26 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1089/neur.2023.0074
Axel Risinger Liljegren, Camilla Brorsson, Marcus Karlsson, Lars-Owe D Koskinen, Nina Sundström
{"title":"Cerebrovascular Pressure Reactivity Measures: Index Comparison and Clinical Outcome in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Treated According to an Intracranial Pressure-Focused Management: Rejection of the Null Hypothesis.","authors":"Axel Risinger Liljegren, Camilla Brorsson, Marcus Karlsson, Lars-Owe D Koskinen, Nina Sundström","doi":"10.1089/neur.2023.0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim was to investigate whether the pressure reactivity indices PRx, long-PRx (L-PRx), and pressure reactivity (PR) are interchangeable as measures of vascular reactivity, and whether they correlate with clinical outcome when an intracranial pressure (ICP)-targeted treatment regimen is applied in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients with TBI (<i>n</i> = 29) that arrived at the hospital within 24 h of injury were included. PRx and L-PRx were derived from Pearson correlations between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ICP over a short- and long-time interval. PR was the regression coefficient between the hourly mean values of ICP and MAP. Indices were compared to each other, parameters at admission, and outcome assessed by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) at 6 and 12 months. PRx and L-PRx had the strongest correlation with each other (<i>R</i> = 0.536, <i>p</i> < 0.01). A correlation was also noted between L-PRx and PR (<i>R</i> = 0.475, <i>p</i> < 0.01), but not between PRx and PR. A correlation was found between age and PRx (<i>R</i> = 0.482, <i>p</i> = 0.01). No association with outcome for any of the indices was found. PRx/L-PRx and L-PRx/PR were moderately correlated with each other. Age was associated with PRx. None of the indices correlated with outcome when our ICP treatment regime was applied. Part of our null hypothesis, that the three indices are associated with outcome, must be rejected. There was, however, an association between some of the indices. To further understand the relation of treatment regimes and pressure reactivity indices, a larger, randomized study is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":74300,"journal":{"name":"Neurotrauma reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10754344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotrauma reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2023.0074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim was to investigate whether the pressure reactivity indices PRx, long-PRx (L-PRx), and pressure reactivity (PR) are interchangeable as measures of vascular reactivity, and whether they correlate with clinical outcome when an intracranial pressure (ICP)-targeted treatment regimen is applied in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients with TBI (n = 29) that arrived at the hospital within 24 h of injury were included. PRx and L-PRx were derived from Pearson correlations between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ICP over a short- and long-time interval. PR was the regression coefficient between the hourly mean values of ICP and MAP. Indices were compared to each other, parameters at admission, and outcome assessed by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) at 6 and 12 months. PRx and L-PRx had the strongest correlation with each other (R = 0.536, p < 0.01). A correlation was also noted between L-PRx and PR (R = 0.475, p < 0.01), but not between PRx and PR. A correlation was found between age and PRx (R = 0.482, p = 0.01). No association with outcome for any of the indices was found. PRx/L-PRx and L-PRx/PR were moderately correlated with each other. Age was associated with PRx. None of the indices correlated with outcome when our ICP treatment regime was applied. Part of our null hypothesis, that the three indices are associated with outcome, must be rejected. There was, however, an association between some of the indices. To further understand the relation of treatment regimes and pressure reactivity indices, a larger, randomized study is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑血管压力反应性测量:指数比较与以颅内压为中心的治疗方法治疗脑外伤患者的临床结果:拒绝零假设。
目的是研究压力反应性指数 PRx、长压力反应性(L-PRx)和压力反应性(PR)作为血管反应性的测量指标是否可以互换,以及在对创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者采用以颅内压(ICP)为目标的治疗方案时,它们是否与临床结果相关。研究对象包括受伤后 24 小时内到达医院的创伤性脑损伤患者(29 人)。PRx和L-PRx来自平均动脉压(MAP)和ICP在短期和长期时间间隔内的皮尔逊相关性。PR 是 ICP 和 MAP 每小时平均值之间的回归系数。各指标之间、入院时的参数之间以及 6 个月和 12 个月后通过格拉斯哥结果量表扩展版(GOSE)评估的结果之间进行了比较。PRx 和 L-PRx 之间的相关性最强(R = 0.536,p R = 0.475,p R = 0.482,p = 0.01)。没有发现任何指数与结果相关。PRx/L-PRx和L-PRx/PR之间呈中度相关。年龄与 PRx 相关。在采用我们的 ICP 治疗方案时,没有一项指标与治疗结果相关。我们的部分零假设,即三个指数与结果相关,必须被拒绝。但是,某些指数之间存在关联。为了进一步了解治疗方案与压力反应指数之间的关系,有必要进行更大规模的随机研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Symptomatic Recovery from Concussion in Military Service Members with and Without Associated Bodily Injuries. Traumatic Brain Injury and Genetic Risk for Alzheimer's Disease Impact Cerebrospinal Fluid β-Amyloid Levels in Vietnam War Veterans. Old Age Exacerbates White Matter Neuroinflammation and Cognitive Deficits Following Closed-Head Injury, Particularly in Female Mice. Ossification of Cranial Epidural Hematomas: A Systematic Review of Management Strategies and Presentation of an Illustrative Case. Acute and Reversible Hypothalamic Symptoms in a Lateral Head Impact Mouse Model of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1