Evaluation of coronary perfusion pressure and diastolic blood pressure calculation methods in a swine model of pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Jeremy C. Zuckerberg , Tiffany Ko , M. Katie Weeks , Nicholas J. Widmann , Martha F. Kienzle , Hunter A. Gaudio , Luiz Eduardo V. Silva , Ron W. Reeder , Robert M. Sutton , Robert A. Berg , Todd J. Kilbaugh , Ryan W. Morgan
{"title":"Evaluation of coronary perfusion pressure and diastolic blood pressure calculation methods in a swine model of pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation","authors":"Jeremy C. Zuckerberg ,&nbsp;Tiffany Ko ,&nbsp;M. Katie Weeks ,&nbsp;Nicholas J. Widmann ,&nbsp;Martha F. Kienzle ,&nbsp;Hunter A. Gaudio ,&nbsp;Luiz Eduardo V. Silva ,&nbsp;Ron W. Reeder ,&nbsp;Robert M. Sutton ,&nbsp;Robert A. Berg ,&nbsp;Todd J. Kilbaugh ,&nbsp;Ryan W. Morgan","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Measurement of coronary perfusion pressure (CoPP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is important for titration of physiologic-directed CPR. However, agreement between different calculation methods and their relative performance as outcome discriminators are not well established.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Four calculation methods, differentiated by sampling technique, were retrospectively applied to pressure waveforms from piglet CPR: late diastole (CoPP<sub>65</sub>, DBP<sub>65</sub>), mid-diastole (CoPP<sub>50</sub>, DBP<sub>50</sub>), diastolic minimum (CoPP<sub>min</sub>, DBP<sub>min</sub>), and diastolic mean (CoPP<sub>mean</sub>, DBP<sub>mean</sub>). Intermethod agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and Cohen’s kappa statistic. Logistic regression was used to evaluate performance in discriminating return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and to identify optimal thresholds.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Relative to CoPP<sub>65</sub>, measurements by CoPP<sub>50</sub>, CoPP<sub>min</sub>, and CoPP<sub>mean</sub> were within 5 mmHg limits of agreement (LOA) in 97%, 64%, and 99% of instances with kappa 0.88, 0.76, and 0.91, respectively. Relative to DBP<sub>65</sub>, measurements by DBP<sub>50</sub>, DBP<sub>min</sub>, and DBP<sub>mean</sub> were within 5 mmHg LOA in 98%, 71%, and 99% of instances with kappa 0.90, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) for CoPP<sub>65</sub>, CoPP<sub>50</sub>, CoPP<sub>min</sub>, and CoPP<sub>mean</sub> were 0.777, 0.792, 0.787, and 0.788, and optimal thresholds to discriminate ROSC were 15.3, 15.8, 12.3, and 14.7 mmHg, respectively. The AUCs for DBP<sub>65</sub>, DBP<sub>50</sub>, DBP<sub>min</sub>, and DBP<sub>mean</sub> were 0.813, 0.827, 0.833, and 0.826, and optimal thresholds to discriminate ROSC were 28.6, 27.3, 26.2, and 29.7 mmHg, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>During piglet CPR, measurements by late diastole, mid-diastole, and diastolic mean strongly agreed, whereas those at diastolic minimum were more discrepant. All methods performed similarly in discrimination of ROSC.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100928"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Measurement of coronary perfusion pressure (CoPP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is important for titration of physiologic-directed CPR. However, agreement between different calculation methods and their relative performance as outcome discriminators are not well established.

Methods

Four calculation methods, differentiated by sampling technique, were retrospectively applied to pressure waveforms from piglet CPR: late diastole (CoPP65, DBP65), mid-diastole (CoPP50, DBP50), diastolic minimum (CoPPmin, DBPmin), and diastolic mean (CoPPmean, DBPmean). Intermethod agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and Cohen’s kappa statistic. Logistic regression was used to evaluate performance in discriminating return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and to identify optimal thresholds.

Results

Relative to CoPP65, measurements by CoPP50, CoPPmin, and CoPPmean were within 5 mmHg limits of agreement (LOA) in 97%, 64%, and 99% of instances with kappa 0.88, 0.76, and 0.91, respectively. Relative to DBP65, measurements by DBP50, DBPmin, and DBPmean were within 5 mmHg LOA in 98%, 71%, and 99% of instances with kappa 0.90, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) for CoPP65, CoPP50, CoPPmin, and CoPPmean were 0.777, 0.792, 0.787, and 0.788, and optimal thresholds to discriminate ROSC were 15.3, 15.8, 12.3, and 14.7 mmHg, respectively. The AUCs for DBP65, DBP50, DBPmin, and DBPmean were 0.813, 0.827, 0.833, and 0.826, and optimal thresholds to discriminate ROSC were 28.6, 27.3, 26.2, and 29.7 mmHg, respectively.

Conclusions

During piglet CPR, measurements by late diastole, mid-diastole, and diastolic mean strongly agreed, whereas those at diastolic minimum were more discrepant. All methods performed similarly in discrimination of ROSC.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信