Confusion with cerebral perfusion pressure in a literature review of current guidelines and survey of clinical practise.
Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/6040Date
2013Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Abstract
Background: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is defined as the difference between the mean arterial pressure
(MAP) and the intracranial pressure (ICP). However, since patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are usually treated
with head elevation, the recorded CPP values depends on the zero level used for calibration of the arterial blood
pressure. Although international guidelines suggest that target values of optimal CPP are within the range of
50 – 70 mmHg in patients with TBI, the calibration of blood pressure, which directly influences CPP, is not
described in the guidelines.
The aim of this study was to review the literature used to support the CPP recommendations from the Brain
Trauma Foundation, and to survey common clinical practice with respect to MAP, CPP targets and head elevation
in European centres treating TBI patients.
Methods: A review of the literature behind CPP threshold recommendations was performed. Authors were
contacted if the publications did not report how MAP or CPP was measured. A short questionnaire related to
measurement and treatment targets of MAP and CPP was sent to European neurosurgical centres treating patients
with TBI.
Results: Assessment methods for CPP measurement were only retrieved from 6 of the 11 studies cited in the TBI
guidelines. Routines for assessment of CPP varied between these 6 publications. The 58 neurosurgical centres that
answered our survey reported diverging routines on how to measure MAP and target CPP values. Higher CPP
threshold were not observed if blood pressure was calibrated at the heart level (p = 0.51).
Conclusions: The evidence behind the recommended CPP thresholds shows no consistency on how blood
pressure is calibrated and clinical practice for MAP measurements and CPP target values seems to be highly
variable. Until a consensus is reached on how to measure CPP, confusion will prevail.
Publisher
BioMed CentralCitation
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 21(2013) nr. 78 s. -Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
The following license file are associated with this item: