ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
The method described by Czosnyka is particularly suitable for measuring CPPe in patients undergoing cerebral angiography.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 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). Methods: 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 CPP Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.