Skip to main content

Patient’s Clinical Presentation and CPPopt Availability: Any Association?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intracranial Pressure and Neuromonitoring XVII

Summary

Background: The ‘optimal’ CPP (CPPopt) concept is based on the vascular pressure reactivity index (PRx). The feasibility and effectiveness of CPPopt guided therapy in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is currently being investigated prospectively in the COGiTATE trial. At the moment there is no clear evidence that certain admission and treatment characteristics are associated with CPPopt availability (yield).

Objective: To test the relation between patients’ admission and treatment characteristics and the average CPPopt yield.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of 230 patients from the CENTER-TBI high-resolution database with intracranial pressure (ICP) measured using an intraparenchymal probe. CPPopt was calculated using the algorithm set for the COGiTATE study. CPPopt yield was defined as the percentage of CPP monitored time (%) when CPPopt is available. The variables in the statistical model included age, admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), gender, pupil response, hypoxia and hypotension at the scene, Marshall computed tomography (CT) score, decompressive craniectomy, injury severity score score and 24-h therapeutic intensity level (TIL) score.

Results: The median CPPopt yield was 80.7% (interquartile range 70.9–87.4%). None of the selected variables showed a significant statistical correlation with the CPPopt yield.

Conclusion: In this retrospective multicenter study, none of the selected admission and treatment variables were related to the CPPopt yield.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lassen NA (1968) Autoregulation of cerebral blood flow. Circ Res 15(Suppl):201–204

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aries MJH et al (2012) Continuous determination of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 40(8):2456–2463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Czosnyka M et al (1997) Continuous assessment of the cerebral vasomotor reactivity in head injury. Neurosurgery 41(1):11–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brady KM, Lee JK, Kibler KK, Easley RB, Koehler RC, Shaffner DH (2008) Continuous measurement of autoregulation by spontaneous fluctuations in cerebral perfusion pressure: comparison of 3 methods. Stroke 39:2531–2537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavinio A et al (2008) Cerebrovascular reactivity and autonomic drive following traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochir Suppl 102:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-85578-2_1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Petkus V, Krakauskait S, Preiksaitis A et al (2016) Association between the outcome of traumatic brain injury patients and cerebrovascular autoregulation, cerebral perfusion pressure, age, and injury grades. Medicina (Lithuania) 52(1):46–53

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sorrentino E, Diedler J, Kasprowicz M, Budohoski KP, Haubrich C, Smielewski P, Outtrim JG, Manktelow A, Hutchinson PJ, Pickard JD, Menon DK, Czosnyka M (2012) Critical thresholds for cerebrovascular reactivity after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 16(2):258–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Steiner LA, Czosnyka M, Piechnik SK, et al. (2002) Continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pressure reactivity allows determination of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury. Critical Care, 30(4):733–738

    Google Scholar 

  9. Liu X et al (2017) Monitoring of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in traumatic brain injured patients using a multi-window weighting algorithm. J Neurotrauma 34:3081–3088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beqiri E, Smielewski P, Robba C et al (2019) Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol. BMJ Open 9:e030727. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030727

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Maset AL, Marmarou A, Ward JD, Choi S, Lutz HA, Brooks D, Moulton RJ, DeSalles A, Muizelaar JP, Turner H (1987) Pressure-volume index in head injury. J Neurosurg 67:832–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Timofeev et al. (2008) “Effect of decompressive craniectomy on intracranial pressure and cerebrospinal compensation following traumatic brain injury”J Neurosurg; 108(1):66–73

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dias C et al (2015) Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management at bedside: a single-center pilot study. NCC 23:92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weersink C.S.A et al. (2015) Clinical and physiological events that contribute to the success rate of finding “Optimal” cerebral perfusion pressure in Severe Brain Trauma Patients Crit Care Med; 43(9):1952–63

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The data used here were collected as part of a study supported by the European Union seventh Framework Programme (Grant 602150), Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (Center-TBI).

CENTER-TBI High-Resolution (HR ICU) Substudy Participants and Investigators : Audny Anke, Ronny Beer, BoMichael Bellander, Andras Buki, Marco Carbonara, Arturo Chieregato, Giuseppe Citerio, Endre Czeiter, Bart Depreitere, Shirin Frisvold, Raimund Helbok, Stefan Jankowski, Danile Kondziella, Lars-Owe Koskinen, Ana Kowark, David K. Menon, Geert Meyfroidt, Kirsten Moeller, David Nelson, Anna Piippo-Karjalainen, Andreea Radoi, Arminas Ragauskas, Rahul Raj, Jonathan Rhodes, Saulius Rocka, Rolf Rossaint, Juan Sahuquillo, Oliver Sakowitz, Nino Stocchetti, Nina Sundström, Riikka Takala, Tomas Tamosuitis, Olli Tenovuo, Peter Vajkoczy, Alessia Vargiolu, Rimantas Vilcinis, Stefan Wolf, Alexander Younsi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

Authors MC and PS have a financial interest in part of the licensing fees for ICM+ software.

MC is supported by NIHR, Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liberti, A. et al. (2021). Patient’s Clinical Presentation and CPPopt Availability: Any Association?. In: Depreitere, B., Meyfroidt, G., Güiza, F. (eds) Intracranial Pressure and Neuromonitoring XVII. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement, vol 131. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59436-7_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59436-7_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59435-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59436-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics