Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37853235›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2024

Inaugural State of the Union: Continuous Cerebral Autoregulation Monitoring in the Clinical Practice of Neurocritical Care and Anesthesia.

Soojin Park, Erta Beqiri, Peter Smielewski, Marcel Aries, CLINICCA (CLINical use of Information on Continuous monitoring of Cerebral Autoregulation)

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Individualized autoregulation-guided arterial blood pressure management in neurocritical care.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Soojin ParkDepartments of Neurology and Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Erta BeqiriBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter SmielewskiBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ps10011@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5096-3938
Marcel AriesSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience, University Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
CLINICCA (CLINical use of Information on Continuous monitoring of Cerebral Autoregulation)

Funding

Precision blood pressure management after endovascular stroke therapy based on real-time autoregulation measurementsK23NS110980 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI PETERSEN, NILS H. · 2020 to 2024
$951k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS110980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How continuous cerebral autoregulation (CCA) knowledge should be optimally gained and interpreted is still an active area of research and refinement. We now experience a unique situation of having indices clinically available before definitive evidence of benefit or practice guidelines, in a moment when high rates of institutional variability exist both in the application of monitoring as well as in monitoring-guided treatments. Responses from 47 international clinicians, experts in this field, were collected with polling and discussion of the results. The clinical use of CCA in critical illness was not universal among experts, with 34% not using it. Of those who use a CCA index in clinical practice, 64% use intracranial pressure-based Pressure Reactivity index (PRx). There seems to exist a considerable trust in the physiologic plausibility of CCA to guide individual arterial blood pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure therapy and provide benefit, regardless of the difficulty of proving this. A total of 59% feel the need for phase II and III prospective studies but would continue to use CCA information in their practice even if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not show clear clinical benefit. There was nearly universal interest to participate in an RCT, with agreement that the research community must together determine end points and interventions to reduce wasted effort and time, and that investigations should include the following: the most appropriate way of inclusion of CCA into the clinical workflow; whether CCA-guided interventions should be prophylactic, proactive; or reactive; and whether a CCA-centric (unimodal) or a multimodal monitoring-integrated tiered therapy approach should be adopted. Pediatric and neonatal populations were highlighted as having urgent need and even more plausibility than adults. On the whole, the initiative was enthusiastically embraced by the experts, with the general feeling that a strong push should be now made by the community to convert the plausible benefits of CCA monitoring, already implemented in some centers, into a more standardized and RCT-validated clinical reality.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular CirculationCritical CareHomeostasisAnesthesiaHumansIntracranial PressureMonitoring, PhysiologicNeurophysiological Monitoring

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.