Search

Dynamic cerebral autoregulation to spontaneous fluctuations in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is often assessed by transcranial Doppler (TCD) in the time domain, yielding primarily the mean flow index (Mx), or in the frequency domain using transfer function analysis (TFA), yielding gain and phase. For both domains, the measurement of blood pressure is critical. This study assessed the inter-method reliability of dynamic cerebral autoregulation using three different methods of pressure measurement. In 39 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, non-invasive arterial blood pressure (ABP), invasive ABP (measured in the radial artery) and CPP were recorded simultaneously with TCD. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to quantify reliability. Mx was higher when calculated using invasive ABP (0.39; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.33; 0.44) compared to non-invasive ABP, and CPP. The overall ICC showed poor to good reliability (0.65; 95% CI: 0.11; 0.84; n = 69). In the low frequency domain, the comparison between invasively measured ABP and CPP showed good to excellent (normalized gain, ICC: 0.87, 95CI: 0.81; 0.91; n = 96; non-normalized gain: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84; 0.92; n = 96) and moderate to good reliability (phase, ICC: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55; 0.79; n = 96), respectively. Different methods for pressure measurement in the assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation yield different results and cannot be used interchangeably., (© 2022 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society.)

Background: Mean flow index (Mxa) for evaluating dynamic cerebral autoregulation is derived using varying approaches for calculation, which may explain that the reliability ranges from poor to excellent. The comparability, repeatability, stability, and internal consistency of approaches have not previously been assessed., Methods: We included 60 recordings from resting healthy volunteers and calculated Mxa using four different approaches: three without overlapping calculations, using intervals for averaging wave-form data (blocks) of 3, 6, and 10 s, and correlation periods (epochs) of 60, 240, and 300 s (3-60-F, 6-240-F, and 10-300-F); and one using 10-second blocks, 300 s epochs, and overlaps of 60 s (10-300-60). The comparability between the approaches was assessed using Student's t test, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman plot., Results: Overall, 3-60-F resulted in a higher Mxa than the other indices (p < 0.001, for all). The reliability when comparing all the approaches ranged from moderate to good (ICC: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.59-0.84), which was primarily due to similarities between 10-300-F and 10-300-60 (ICC: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.86-0.98). The reliability when comparing the first and last half was poor for 10-300-F and ranged from poor to moderate for the other approaches. Additional random artifacts resulted in poor reliability for 10-300-F, while the other approaches were more stable., Conclusions: Mxa in general has a low sensitivity to artifacts, but otherwise seems highly dependent on the approach, with a repeatability that is moderate at best. The varying accuracy and precision renders Mxa unreliable for classifying impaired cerebral autoregulation when using healthy adults for comparison., (© 2021 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society.)