Search

Item does not contain fulltext Cerebral autoregulation is the intrinsic ability of the brain to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion in the presence of blood pressure changes. A large number of methods to assess the quality of cerebral autoregulation have been proposed over the last 30 years. However, no single method has been universally accepted as a gold standard. Therefore, the choice of which method to employ to quantify cerebral autoregulation remains a matter of personal choice. Nevertheless, given the concept that cerebral autoregulation represents the dynamic relationship between blood pressure (stimulus or input) and cerebral blood flow (response or output), transfer function analysis became the most popular approach adopted in studies based on spontaneous fluctuations of blood pressure. Despite its sound theoretical background, the literature shows considerable variation in implementation of transfer function analysis in practice, which has limited comparisons between studies and hindered progress towards clinical application. Therefore, the purpose of the present white paper is to improve standardisation of parameters and settings adopted for application of transfer function analysis in studies of dynamic cerebral autoregulation. The development of these recommendations was initiated by (but not confined to) theCerebral Autoregulation Research Network(CARNet -www.car-net.org).

Background Several methods have been proposed to measure cerebrovascular autoregulation (CA) in traumatic brain injury (TBI), but the lack of a gold standard and the absence of prospective clinical data on risks, impact on care and outcomes of implementation of CA-guided management lead to uncertainty. Aim To formulate statements using a Delphi consensus approach employing a group of expert clinicians, that reflect current knowledge of CA, aspects that can be implemented in TBI management and CA research priorities. Methods A group of 25 international academic experts with clinical expertise in the management of adult severe TBI patients participated in this consensus process. Seventy-seven statements and multiple-choice questions were submitted to the group in two online surveys, followed by a face-to-face meeting and a third online survey. Participants received feedback on average scores and the rationale for resubmission or rephrasing of statements. Consensus on a statement was defined as agreement of more than 75% of participants. Results Consensus amongst participants was achieved on the importance of CA status in adult severe TBI pathophysiology, the dynamic non-binary nature of CA impairment, its association with outcome and the inadvisability of employing universal and absolute cerebral perfusion pressure targets. Consensus could not be reached on the accuracy, reliability and validation of any current CA assessment method. There was also no consensus on how to implement CA information in clinical management protocols, reflecting insufficient clinical evidence. Conclusion The Delphi process resulted in 25 consensus statements addressing the pathophysiology of impaired CA, and its impact on cerebral perfusion pressure targets and outcome. A research agenda was proposed emphasizing the need for better validated CA assessment methods as well as the focused investigation of the application of CA-guided management in clinical care using prospective safety, feasibility and efficacy studies.