ArticleNeurocritical care2024
Improved Transcranial Doppler Waveform Analysis for Intracranial Hypertension Assessment in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.
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 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Value of transcranial color-coded duplex sonography-derived middle cerebral artery pulsatility index in intracranial pressure assessment at moderate to high altitudes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Non-invasive ICP monitoring when invasive systems are available in the care of acute brain injured patients: a clinical approach.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Exploring Cerebrospinal Compensatory Zones Using a Noninvasive Approach.Neurocritical care · 2025Observational
- Traumatic brain injury management in the intensive care unit: standard of care and knowledge gaps.Intensive care medicine · 2025Review
- Theory of arterial acceleration: implications for transcranial Doppler monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- The Brussels consensus for non-invasive ICP monitoring when invasive systems are not available in the care of TBI patients (the B-ICONIC consensus, recommendations, and management algorithm).Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting short-term outcomes in brain-injured patients: a comprehensive approach with transcranial Doppler and intracranial compliance assessment.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024Article
- Noninvasive neuromonitoring in acute brain injured patients.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Improved Transcranial Doppler Waveform Analysis for Intracranial Hypertension Assessment in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Are Intracranial Pressure Waveforms the New Frontier for Noninvasive Assessment of Intracranial Pressure?Neurocritical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial Doppler (TCD) is a noninvasive bedside tool for cerebral hemodynamic assessments in multiple clinical scenarios. TCD, by means of measuring systolic and diastolic blood velocities, allows the calculation of the pulsatility index (PI), a parameter that is correlated with intracranial pressure (ICP). Nevertheless, the predictive value of the PI for raised ICP appears to be low, as it is subjected to several, often confounding, factors not related to ICP. Recently, the pulsatile apparent resistance (PaR) index was developed as a PI corrected for arterial blood pressure, reducing some of the confounding factors influencing PI. This study compares the predictive value of PaR versus PI for intracranial hypertension (IH) (ICP > 20 mm Hg) in patients with traumatic brain injury.
methodsPatients with traumatic brain injury admitted to the neurocritical care unit who required invasive ICP monitoring were included prospectively within 5 days of admission. TCD measurements were performed in both middle cerebral arteries, allowing calculations of the PI and PaR. The optimal cutoff, discriminative power of these parameters for ICP ≥ 20 mm Hg, was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC).
resultsIn total, 93 patients were included. A total of 20 (22%) patients experienced IH during the recording sessions. The discriminative power was low for PI (AUC 0.63) but slightly higher for PaR (AUC 0.77). Nonparametric analysis indicated significant difference for PaR when comparing patients with (median 0.169) and without IH (median - 0.052, p = 0.001), whereas PI medians for patients with and without IH were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively (p = 0.041). Regarding subanalyses, the discriminative power of these parameters increased after exclusion of patients who had undergone a neurosurgical procedure. This was especially true for the PaR (AUC 0.89) and PI (AUC 0.72). Among these patients, a PaR cutoff value of - 0.023 had 100% sensitivity and 52.9% specificity.
conclusionsIn the present study, discriminative power of the PaR for discriminating IH was superior to the PI. The PaR seems to be a reliable noninvasive parameter for detecting IH. Further studies are warranted to define its clinical application, especially in aiding neurosurgical decision making, following up in intensive care units, and defining its ability to indicate responses according to the therapies administered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37932509What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.