• Christof Thees, Martin Scholz, Carlo Schaller M D, Annette Gass, Christos Pavlidis, Andreas Weyland, and Andreas Hoeft.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. christof.thees@ukb.uni-bonn.de
• Anesthesiology. 2002 Mar 1;96(3):595-9.

BackgroundThe driving pressure gradient for cerebral perfusion is the difference between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and critical closing pressure (CCP = zero flow pressure). Therefore, determination of the difference between MAP and CCP should provide an appropriate monitoring of the effective cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP(eff)). Based on this concept, the authors compared conventional measurements of cerebral perfusion pressure by MAP and intracranial pressure (CPP(ICP)) with CPP(eff).MethodsSimultaneous synchronized recordings of pressure waveforms of the radial artery and blood flow velocities of the middle cerebral artery were performed in 70 head trauma patients. CCP was calculated from pressure-flow velocity plots by linear extrapolation to zero flow.ResultsIntracranial pressure measured by intraventricular probes and CCP ranged from 3 to 71 and 4 to 70 mmHg, respectively. Linear correlation between ICP and CCP was r = 0.91. CPP(ICP) was 77 +/- 20 mmHg and did not differ from CPP(eff); linear correlation was r = 0.92. However, limits of agreement were only +/- 16.2 mmHg. Therefore, in 51.4% of the patients, CPP(ICP) overestimated CPP(eff) by 19.8 mmHg at most.ConclusionAssuming that CPP(eff) (MAP - CCP) takes into account more determinants of cerebral downstream pressure, in individual cases, the actual gold standard of CPP determination (MAP - ICP) might overestimate the CPP(eff) of therapeutic significance.

26 keywords...

hide…