ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Investigating the dynamics of intracranial pressure and cerebral autoregulation during extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a porcine model.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroprognostication After Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: ECMO-Specific Challenges and a Multimodal Time-Sensitive Framework.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Microcirculation and Cerebrovascular Autoregulation in Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of stroke · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has emerged as a promising intervention for refractory cardiac arrest, with potential benefits in survival and neurological outcomes. However, the impact of ECPR's rapid, non-pulsatile restoration of cerebral blood flow on intracranial physiology and autoregulation remains poorly understood. Methods: Using a porcine model, this study investigated the dynamics of intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral autoregulation, and pulsatility during key experimental phases: Baseline, Fibrillation, ECMO, and ROSC. ICP waveform features, including spectral entropy and centroid, were analyzed to assess signal complexity and dominant frequency shifts. Pressure reactivity index (PRx), the correlation between MAP and ICP, was used to assess impaired cerebral autoregulation (PRx > 0.3). Pulsatility, quantified by pulse pressure (PP) and pulsatility index (PI), was evaluated for its interaction with PRx. Results: Significant alterations in ICP and PRx were observed across experimental phases. During Fibrillation, ICP increased, waveforms lost pulsatile structure and complexity, and elevated PRx indicated impaired autoregulation. ECMO initiation resulted in a reduction of ICP fluctuations but reduced pulsatility due to the steady, non-physiological flow. Following ROSC, ICP pulsatility partially recovered, but PRx variability remained high, suggesting inter-subject differences in autoregulatory recovery. Negative correlations between pulsatility and PRx (slope = -0.096, 95% CI: -0.136 to -0.056, Conclusion: This study highlights the complex intracranial changes during ECPR, emphasizing the importance of pulsatility in maintaining cerebral autoregulation. Findings suggest the need for refined ECPR protocols to optimize cerebral protection and improve autoregulatory recovery.
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.