ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Ventilator-Induced Signal Interference and the Accuracy of the Pressure Reactivity Index in Acute Brain Injury.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pressure reactivity index (PRx) is a widely used marker of cerebral autoregulation (CA) in patients with acute brain injury (ABI). However, its accuracy may be compromised by mechanical ventilation (MV), which can influence both arterial blood pressure (ABP) and intracranial pressure (ICP).
objectiveThe objective was to assess how different components of MV, especially recruitment maneuvers (RMs), affect PRx computation and its reliability in reflecting CA.
methodsWe revisited the theoretical basis of PRx and derived a mathematical expression that quantifies the influence of MV-related interferences on PRx values. The influence of both frequency and amplitude of such interferences was further investigated through in silico experiments. Special attention was given to the effects of a common RM technique.
resultsPRx calculations were found to be stable in the presence of high-frequency signal interference (> 0.2 Hz), consistent with standard respiratory cycles. However, low-frequency perturbations, such as those introduced during RMs, may distort the ABP-ICP relationship and cause PRx to underestimate CA dysfunction.
conclusionsWhile PRx is generally robust against fast ventilatory signals, its interpretation may be significantly affected during low-frequency interventions such as RMs. Clinical teams should consider these limitations when using PRx to guide management, especially during advanced ventilator strategies in patients with ABI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41792524What 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.