Ihsane Olakorede, Stefan Yu Bögli, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski
{"title":"Dynamic Noninvasive Assessment of Intracranial Pressure, Cerebral Perfusion Pressure, and Autoregulation.","authors":"Ihsane Olakorede, Stefan Yu Bögli, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski","doi":"10.1097/ANA.0000000000001165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is critical for managing traumatic brain injury, yet invasive methods carry risks and require specialized settings. Noninvasive transcranial Doppler (TCD)-based methods have been proposed to estimate ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), although validation studies predominantly assess static agreement. Clinical monitoring depends on accurate reproduction of dynamic changes. This study assesses the ability of noninvasive methods to reproduce temporal variations in ICP, CPP, and autoregulatory indices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nonoverlapping 5-minute segments from 96 simultaneous ICP and TCD recordings in 38 TBI patients were analyzed. Eight blood velocity-based models were used to derive noninvasive estimates of ICP, CPP, pressure reactivity index (PRx), and mean flow index (Mx). Agreement was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses, whereas dynamic performance was evaluated using first-order differences and linear mixed-effects modeling. Discriminative ability for intracranial hypertension (ICP>22 mm Hg), low CPP (<60 mm Hg), and impaired autoregulation (PRx>0.3; Mx>0.4) was examined using receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Noninvasive estimates of CPP and Mx demonstrated stronger dynamic agreement with their reference measures than noninvasive estimates of ICP and PRx. Selected models showed robust discrimination of low CPP and impaired Mx (area under the curve up to 0.96 and 0.89). Conversely, reproduction of ICP dynamics and PRx was moderate, with significant interpatient and intrapatient variability. Dynamic analyses revealed discrepancies missed by static agreement metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evaluation of noninvasive ICP monitoring should extend beyond static accuracy. TCD-based approaches may support noninvasive monitoring of CPP and Mx, but current methods remain insufficient for reliable tracking of ICP and PRx dynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":16550,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000001165","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is critical for managing traumatic brain injury, yet invasive methods carry risks and require specialized settings. Noninvasive transcranial Doppler (TCD)-based methods have been proposed to estimate ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), although validation studies predominantly assess static agreement. Clinical monitoring depends on accurate reproduction of dynamic changes. This study assesses the ability of noninvasive methods to reproduce temporal variations in ICP, CPP, and autoregulatory indices.
Methods: Nonoverlapping 5-minute segments from 96 simultaneous ICP and TCD recordings in 38 TBI patients were analyzed. Eight blood velocity-based models were used to derive noninvasive estimates of ICP, CPP, pressure reactivity index (PRx), and mean flow index (Mx). Agreement was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses, whereas dynamic performance was evaluated using first-order differences and linear mixed-effects modeling. Discriminative ability for intracranial hypertension (ICP>22 mm Hg), low CPP (<60 mm Hg), and impaired autoregulation (PRx>0.3; Mx>0.4) was examined using receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall analyses.
Results: Noninvasive estimates of CPP and Mx demonstrated stronger dynamic agreement with their reference measures than noninvasive estimates of ICP and PRx. Selected models showed robust discrimination of low CPP and impaired Mx (area under the curve up to 0.96 and 0.89). Conversely, reproduction of ICP dynamics and PRx was moderate, with significant interpatient and intrapatient variability. Dynamic analyses revealed discrepancies missed by static agreement metrics.
Conclusions: Evaluation of noninvasive ICP monitoring should extend beyond static accuracy. TCD-based approaches may support noninvasive monitoring of CPP and Mx, but current methods remain insufficient for reliable tracking of ICP and PRx dynamics.
背景:颅内压(ICP)监测对于治疗外伤性脑损伤至关重要,但侵入性方法存在风险,需要专门设置。无创经颅多普勒(TCD)为基础的方法已经提出估计ICP和脑灌注压(CPP),尽管验证研究主要评估静态一致性。临床监测依赖于动态变化的准确再现。本研究评估了非侵入性方法重现ICP、CPP和自我调节指标的时间变化的能力。方法:对38例颅脑损伤患者的96次ICP和TCD同时记录的非重叠5分钟片段进行分析。使用8个基于血流速度的模型来获得ICP、CPP、压力反应指数(PRx)和平均血流指数(Mx)的无创估计。使用相关性和Bland-Altman分析评估一致性,而使用一阶差异和线性混合效应建模评估动态性能。采用受检者工作特征和精确召回分析检验颅内高压(ICP>22 mm Hg)、低CPP (0.3; Mx>0.4)的判别能力。结果:与ICP和PRx的无创评估相比,CPP和Mx的无创评估与其参考指标表现出更强的动态一致性。所选模型对低CPP和Mx损伤(曲线下面积分别高达0.96和0.89)具有较强的区分能力。相反,ICP动态和PRx的再现是温和的,具有显著的患者间和患者内变异性。动态分析揭示了静态协议度量所遗漏的差异。结论:评估无创ICP监测应超越静态精度。基于tcd的方法可能支持无创监测CPP和Mx,但目前的方法仍然不足以可靠地跟踪ICP和PRx动态。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) is a peer-reviewed publication directed to an audience of neuroanesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, neurosurgical monitoring specialists, neurosurgical support staff, and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit personnel. The journal publishes original peer-reviewed studies in the form of Clinical Investigations, Laboratory Investigations, Clinical Reports, Review Articles, Journal Club synopses of current literature from related journals, presentation of Points of View on controversial issues, Book Reviews, Correspondence, and Abstracts from affiliated neuroanesthesiology societies.
JNA is the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care, the Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Association de Neuro-Anesthésiologie Réanimation de langue Française, the Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Neuroanästhesie der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizen, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutschsprachiger Neuroanästhesisten und Neuro-Intensivmediziner, the Korean Society of Neuroanesthesia, the Japanese Society of Neuroanesthesia and Critical Care, the Neuroanesthesiology Chapter of the Colegio Mexicano de Anesthesiología, the Indian Society of Neuroanesthesiology and Critical Care, and the Thai Society for Neuroanesthesia.