Cargando…

Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise

BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is defined as the difference between the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the intracranial pressure (ICP). However, since patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are usually treated with head elevation, the recorded CPP values depends on the zero leve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rao, Vidar, Klepstad, Pål, Losvik, Ole Kristian, Solheim, Ole
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3843545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-78
_version_ 1782293062605602816
author Rao, Vidar
Klepstad, Pål
Losvik, Ole Kristian
Solheim, Ole
author_facet Rao, Vidar
Klepstad, Pål
Losvik, Ole Kristian
Solheim, Ole
author_sort Rao, Vidar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is defined as the difference between the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the intracranial pressure (ICP). However, since patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are usually treated with head elevation, the recorded CPP values depends on the zero level used for calibration of the arterial blood pressure. Although international guidelines suggest that target values of optimal CPP are within the range of 50 – 70 mmHg in patients with TBI, the calibration of blood pressure, which directly influences CPP, is not described in the guidelines. The aim of this study was to review the literature used to support the CPP recommendations from the Brain Trauma Foundation, and to survey common clinical practice with respect to MAP, CPP targets and head elevation in European centres treating TBI patients. METHODS: A review of the literature behind CPP threshold recommendations was performed. Authors were contacted if the publications did not report how MAP or CPP was measured. A short questionnaire related to measurement and treatment targets of MAP and CPP was sent to European neurosurgical centres treating patients with TBI. RESULTS: Assessment methods for CPP measurement were only retrieved from 6 of the 11 studies cited in the TBI guidelines. Routines for assessment of CPP varied between these 6 publications. The 58 neurosurgical centres that answered our survey reported diverging routines on how to measure MAP and target CPP values. Higher CPP threshold were not observed if blood pressure was calibrated at the heart level (p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence behind the recommended CPP thresholds shows no consistency on how blood pressure is calibrated and clinical practice for MAP measurements and CPP target values seems to be highly variable. Until a consensus is reached on how to measure CPP, confusion will prevail.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3843545
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38435452013-11-30 Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise Rao, Vidar Klepstad, Pål Losvik, Ole Kristian Solheim, Ole Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is defined as the difference between the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the intracranial pressure (ICP). However, since patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are usually treated with head elevation, the recorded CPP values depends on the zero level used for calibration of the arterial blood pressure. Although international guidelines suggest that target values of optimal CPP are within the range of 50 – 70 mmHg in patients with TBI, the calibration of blood pressure, which directly influences CPP, is not described in the guidelines. The aim of this study was to review the literature used to support the CPP recommendations from the Brain Trauma Foundation, and to survey common clinical practice with respect to MAP, CPP targets and head elevation in European centres treating TBI patients. METHODS: A review of the literature behind CPP threshold recommendations was performed. Authors were contacted if the publications did not report how MAP or CPP was measured. A short questionnaire related to measurement and treatment targets of MAP and CPP was sent to European neurosurgical centres treating patients with TBI. RESULTS: Assessment methods for CPP measurement were only retrieved from 6 of the 11 studies cited in the TBI guidelines. Routines for assessment of CPP varied between these 6 publications. The 58 neurosurgical centres that answered our survey reported diverging routines on how to measure MAP and target CPP values. Higher CPP threshold were not observed if blood pressure was calibrated at the heart level (p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence behind the recommended CPP thresholds shows no consistency on how blood pressure is calibrated and clinical practice for MAP measurements and CPP target values seems to be highly variable. Until a consensus is reached on how to measure CPP, confusion will prevail. BioMed Central 2013-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3843545/ /pubmed/24262017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-78 Text en Copyright © 2013 Rao et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research
Rao, Vidar
Klepstad, Pål
Losvik, Ole Kristian
Solheim, Ole
Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title_full Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title_fullStr Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title_full_unstemmed Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title_short Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
title_sort confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3843545/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-78
work_keys_str_mv AT raovidar confusionwithcerebralperfusionpressureinaliteraturereviewofcurrentguidelinesandsurveyofclinicalpractise
AT klepstadpal confusionwithcerebralperfusionpressureinaliteraturereviewofcurrentguidelinesandsurveyofclinicalpractise
AT losvikolekristian confusionwithcerebralperfusionpressureinaliteraturereviewofcurrentguidelinesandsurveyofclinicalpractise
AT solheimole confusionwithcerebralperfusionpressureinaliteraturereviewofcurrentguidelinesandsurveyofclinicalpractise