Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Surg.
Sec. Neurosurgery
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1488265

The method described by Czosnyka is particularly suitable for measuring CPPe in patients undergoing cerebral angiography

Provisionally accepted
Yunyun Liang Yunyun Liang 1Pei Mo Pei Mo 1Yonghong Chen Yonghong Chen 1Xinwu Liu Xinwu Liu 1Lin Chen Lin Chen 1Xiaomin Zhou Xiaomin Zhou 1Zijin Wang Zijin Wang 2Junyi Fu Junyi Fu 1*Longchang Xie Longchang Xie 1*
  • 1 The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
  • 2 Guilin Medical University, Guilin, Guangxi Zhuang Region, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The primary objective of this study was to estimate the effective cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPe), critical closing pressure (CrCP), and resistance-area product (RAP) of the intravascular common carotid artery using three different methods. These estimates were then compared to the reference method of linear regression (LR).In our previous study, we employed linear regression to evaluate the values of CrCP and RAP. To assess the consistency of results obtained from alternative assessment methods (CPPe, CrCP, and RAP) with the linear regression LR, we conducted a secondary analysis of the previously collected data. We estimated the CPPe, CrCP, and RAP of the intravascular common carotid artery using three different methods: Belford's method (mean/diastolic pressure), Czosnyka's method (systolic/diastolic pressure, CZO), and Schmidt's method (systolic/diastolic pressure, SCH), and compared these estimates with LR. CPPe is calculated as the difference between mean arterial pressure and CrCP. The primary outcome was the mean differences and biases between CPPe, CrCP, and RAP of intravascular common carotid artery, the secondary outcome was correlations and agreement among these various estimates of CPPe measurements.Results: Nineteen patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 53.5 ± 11.6 years, with 73.7% being men. There were no significant differences in CPPe, RAP and CrCP between the right common carotid artery (RCCA) and the left common carotid artery (LCCA) by using three different methods. Compared to the LR, the mean differences in CPPe and CrCP values were no significant for LCCA according to SCH, CZO and BEL method. But for RAP, the three methods are different in terms of mean differences compared with the LR. CPPe and CrCP revealed a small mean bias compared CPPCZO with CPPLR. Comparing CPPLR measurements with CPPBEL, the mean bias was higher with wider LoA. BEL and CZO showed a strong correlation with LR in Pearson correlation coefficients.The CPPe, CrCP, and RAP values obtained using the CZO calculation methods are comparable to those measured using the reference method. These findings may provide valuable insights for patients undergoing digital subtraction brain angiography, aiding in the determination of the most suitable approach for individualized blood pressure management.

    Keywords: cerebral perfusion pressure, cerebral blood flow, Resistance-area product, cerebrovascular resistance, Critical closing pressure

    Received: 29 Aug 2024; Accepted: 12 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Liang, Mo, Chen, Liu, Chen, Zhou, Wang, Fu and Xie. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Junyi Fu, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
    Longchang Xie, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.