Skip to main content
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Download PDF
  • Research Articles
  • Open access
  • Published:

Time spent above optimal cerebral perfusion pressure is not associated with failure to improve in outcome in traumatic brain injury

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental volume 11, Article number: 92 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt) has emerged as a promising personalized medicine approach to the management of moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Though literature demonstrating its association with poor outcomes exists, there is yet to be work done on its association with outcome transition due to a lack of serial outcome data analysis. In this study we investigate the association between various metrics of CPPopt and failure to improve in outcome over time.

Methods

CPPopt was derived using three different cerebrovascular reactivity indices; the pressure reactivity index (PRx), the pulse amplitude index (PAx), and the RAC index. For each index, % times spent with cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) above and below its CPPopt and upper and lower limits of reactivity were calculated. Patients were dichotomized based on improvement in Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) scores into Improved vs. Not Improved between 1 and 3 months, 3 and 6 months, and 1- and 6-month post-TBI. Logistic regression analyses were then conducted, adjusting for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) variables.

Results

This study included a total of 103 patients from the Winnipeg Acute TBI Database. Through Mann–Whitney U testing and logistic regression analysis, it was found that % time spent with CPP below CPPopt was associated with failure to improve in outcome, while % time spent with CPP above CPPopt was generally associated with improvement in outcome.

Conclusions

Our study supports the existing narrative that time spent with CPP below CPPopt results in poorer outcomes. However, it also suggests that time spent above CPPopt may not be associated with worse outcomes and is possibly even associated with improvement in outcome.

Introduction

The concept of optimal CPP (CPPopt) was first developed in 2002 when Steiner et al. were able to demonstrate the feasibility of using the relationship between CPP and cerebrovascular reactivity, a surrogate for cerebral autoregulatory capacity, to calculate an individualized CPP target that optimizes cerebrovascular reactivity [1]. They accomplished this by plotting CPP against the pressure reactivity index (PRx—correlation between ICP and mean arterial pressure [MAP]), producing a U-shaped curve, and pinpointing the CPP value that minimized PRx. As a note, more negative PRx generally indicates more intact cerebral autoregulation. The terms “upper limit of reactivity” (ULR) and “lower limit of reactivity” (LLR) describe the upper and lower CPP thresholds past which cerebrovascular reactivity becomes deranged [2]. These can be visualized graphically as the points, where the U-shaped curve intersects a preset PRx value that has been chosen to represent the threshold past which cerebrovascular reactivity becomes impaired.

Subsequent research has demonstrated the feasibility of continuously determining such personalized CPP targets, rendering their application in clinical settings viable [3,4,5]. It should be noted that other cerebrovascular reactivity indices, such as the pulse amplitude index (PAx—correlation between pulse amplitude of ICP (AMP) and MAP) and RAC (the correlation (R) between AMP (A) and CPP (C)), can also be used to for CPPopt derivation. At this time, there are no definite conclusions on which cerebrovascular reactivity index produces the most superior CPPopt calculation. However, a multi-center study by Zeiler et al. found that RAC-based CPPopt produced comparable outcome associations as PRx-based CPPopt, while PAx-based CPPopt failed to produce statistically significant associations with outcome [6].

Poorer outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been shown to be strongly associated with larger deviation between actual CPP and CPPopt [1, 3, 7, 8], as well as greater duration of deviation [2, 6, 8]. In addition, CPPopt targets have been shown to have more robust associations with patient outcomes compared to guideline-based CPP targets of 60–70 mmHg [3, 6,7,8]. Therefore, CPPopt offers a potential way forward in TBI management, where mortality rates have remained relatively unchanged over the past few decades despite improvements in our capabilities to achieve guideline-based targets [9]. There has been mixed evidence in regard to having actual CPP above vs. below CPPopt. The original study by Steiner et al. found statistically significant associations with worse outcome for both CPP above and below CPPopt [1]. Other studies found that CPP below CPPopt was associated with mortality, while CPP above CPPopt was associated with severe disability [3, 10]. Some other studies found that only time spent below CPPopt was statistically associated with worse outcomes [2, 6]. Time spent, as well as dose-time, with CPP below the LLR has also been shown to be associated with mortality and unfavorable outcome [2, 11]. On the other hand, time spent above the ULR has been shown to be associated with unfavorable outcome but not with mortality [2].

Though a strong relationship between deviations from CPPopt and poor long-term outcomes has already been demonstrated, the current literature has focused completely on single point measures of outcome. Therefore, it remains largely unknown whether time spent with actual CPP deviated from CPPopt is associated with improvement in outcome across time; information which would allow for improvements in prognostic outcome trajectory modelling. Using a similar methodology to a previous study conducted by our lab on the association between cerebrovascular reactivity derangement and transition in outcome [12], we investigated the association between CPPopt; derived using PRx, PAx, and RAC; and failure to improve in outcome post-TBI.

Methods

Patient population and data collection

As part of the ongoing Winnipeg Acute TBI Database, all adult (≥ 18 years) moderate-to-severe TBI patients admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the Health Sciences Centre for invasive cerebral physiologic monitoring have their data prospectively collected [13]. All patients undergo invasive ICP and arterial blood pressure (ABP) monitoring during their ICU stay, as per Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guidelines. Intra-parenchymal strain gauge probes (Codman ICP MicroSensor; Codman & Shurtlef Inc., Raynham, MA, USA) placed in the frontal lobe or external ventricular drains are used to monitor ICP, while radial or femoral arterial lines connected to pressure transducers (Baxter Healthcare Corp. CardioVascular Group, Irvine, CA, USA) zeroed at the level of the tragus [14, 15] are used to monitor ABP. Patients receive standard-of-care consistent with the BTF guidelines, which involves maintaining ICP below 20 mmHg or 22 mmHg, to thwart intracranial hypertension, and CPP above 60 mmHg, to prevent insufficient cerebral perfusion [16]. It should be noted that local practice does not warrant aggressive intervention to combat elevated CPP unless a direct association between elevated CPP and subsequent ICP elevations is evident.

Data collected as part of the Winnipeg Acute TBI Database includes patient demographics, admission characteristics, imaging profiles, treatment descriptions, and outcome grading, all of which are primarily collected through patient files. In addition, all physiologic signals available from patients’ ICU monitors are recorded in time-series at a sampling frequency of at least 100 Hz using Intensive Care Monitoring “Plus” (ICM +) (Cambridge Enterprise Ltd, Cambridge, UK, http://icmplus.neurosurg.cam.ac.uk), through either direct digital data transfer or analog-to-digital signal conversion (DT9804/DT9826, Data Translations, Marlboro, MA, USA). To ensure data quality, a two-tier approach involving both manual and automated techniques is employed to eliminate ICP and ABP signal artifacts. In general, this includes removal of data segments that lack proper waveform morphology or have implausibly low or high values. For cases where ICP is monitored using an external ventricular drain (n = 4), any artifacts related to drain opening are addressed through manual curation.

Following discharge from the ICU, patients undergo routine follow-up appointments at 1, 3, and 6 months. During these visits, patients have their overall outcome status evaluated using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) [17]. These assessments are conducted by experienced specialist surgeons through structured interviews with the patients themselves and, when applicable, their designated proxies. For the purposes of this study, all complete data sets collected, since the inception of the Winnipeg Acute TBI Database in January of 2019 was accessed. Patients who did not have their 6-month outcome assessed by May of 2023 were excluded.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval for all facets of data collection for the ongoing Winnipeg Acute TBI Database have been obtained from the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (H2017:181, H2017:188), the Shared Health Services Manitoba Research Impact Committee, and the Patient Privacy Offices of Manitoba (RI2017:078 and RI:2017:076). Furthermore, since all collected data are thoroughly de-identified to the point that it cannot be traced back to any individual patient, the data collection process has been approved to operate under a waived consent model by both the research ethics board and the provincial patient privacy offices of Manitoba. Retrospective access of this database for this outcome analysis has also been approved by the local ethics board (H2020:118).

Signal processing

Post-acquisition signal processing was carried out using ICM + . To derive AMP, Fourier analysis of the fundamental amplitude of the ICP pulse waveform was calculated over a 10-s window, updating every 10 s [18,19,20]. Next, to concentrate on the frequency range pertinent to cerebrovascular reactivity [21, 22] and mitigate the influence of the respiratory cycle [9], a 10-s non-overlapping moving average filter was applied to down-sample ICP and ABP (yielding MAP). The difference between MAP and ICP was then used to calculate CPP, as described by the following formula: CPP = MAP–ICP. To evaluate cerebrovascular reactivity, three ICP-based surrogate indices were derived: PRx, PAx, and RAC. PRx was computed by assessing the Pearson correlation between 30 successive 10-s windows of ICP and MAP, continually updated on a minute-by-minute basis [23,24,25]. In a similar manner, PAx and RAC were computed using AMP and MAP, and AMP and CPP, respectively [19, 26].

CPPopt was derived in ICM + using the methodology outlined by Aries et al.[3]. Utilizing a minute-by-minute updating 4-h sliding window, a 5-min median CPP time trend was computed alongside each of the cerebrovascular reactivity indices. PRx, PAx, and RAC values were then divided and averaged into 5 mmHg bins of CPP. Employing automatic parabolic curve fitting, the CPP values corresponding to the lowest PRx, PAx, and RAC values were identified, thereby establishing CPPopt–PRx, CPPopt–PAx, and CPPopt–RAC. ΔCPPopt values were then determined every minute by subtracting the respective CPPopt value from the actual CPP value using the following formula: CPP—CPPopt. To calculate the ULR and LLR values for each cerebrovascular reactivity metric, the two points, where the parabolic curve intersected literature defined thresholds of + 0.25 (for PRx), + 0.25 (for PAx), and -0.05 (for RAC) were identified [24, 27, 28]. The LLR was identified as the lower CPP value, where the curve first crosses the threshold line and descends towards the most intact cerebrovascular reactivity, while the ULR was identified as the higher CPP value, where the curve crosses the threshold and ascends towards impaired reactivity. Finally, all data were down-sampled to minute-by-minute resolution and exported as comma-separated values (CSV) files for further processing in R Statistical Computing Software (Version 4.1.0, R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/).

For each patient, average CPPopt values were calculated for all three cerebrovascular reactivity indices, as well as the following metrics:

  1. 1.

    % time with ΔCPPopt > 5 mmHg

  2. 2.

    % time with ΔCPPopt > 10 mmHg

  3. 3.

    % time with ΔCPPopt < -5 mmHg

  4. 4.

    % time with ΔCPPopt < -10 mmHg

  5. 5.

    % time with CPP > ULR

  6. 6.

    % time with CPP < LLR

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis methodology used in this study is similar to that of a previous study from our lab [12]. All statistical testing was performed using R Statistical Computing Software with the following packages: MASS, purrr, fmsb, pROC, broom, ggplot2, and verification. For all continuous variables, we assessed normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. All physiologic variables were revealed to be non-parametric in nature and were subsequently summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Demographic data were summarized using raw counts or medians and IQR where appropriate.

Patients were dichotomized based on GOSE scores into Alive (GOSE 2–8) vs. Dead (GOSE 1) and Favorable (GOSE 5–8) vs. Unfavorable (GOSE 1–4) at 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-TBI. Next, patients were dichotomized based on transition in outcome into Improved vs. Not Improved between 1 and 3 months, 3 and 6 months, and 1 and 6 months. A patient was classified as having improved in outcome if their GOSE score had increased between the two timepoints, and as having failed to improve in outcome if their GOSE score had either decreased or remained the same. We performed a similar dichotomization, where those who had died (GOSE 1) were excluded. In this dichotomization, only those who were both alive and failed to improve in outcome were classified as having Not Improved. As part of an additional secondary analysis, patients were also trichotomized based on age (< 30, 30–60, > 60).

To assess any differences in continuous and non-continuous variables between the various dichotomized groups, we utilized Mann–Whitney U testing and Chi-square testing, respectively. We then employed univariate logistic regression analysis to investigate the association that the various metrics of CPPopt, described at the end of the signal processing section, have with transition in patient outcome. To confirm whether any observed associations would remain significant after accounting for established outcome-associated factors, such as intracranial hypertension [29], we conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The standardized multivariable models used in this analysis comprised of the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Core model, Core + computed tomography (CT) model, Core + CT + % time with ICP > 20 mmHg model, and Core + CT + % time with ICP > 22 mmHg model [12, 30]. The components of the IMPACT Core are age, admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor score, and pupillary response (normal bilaterally, unilaterally unreactive, or bilaterally unreactive), while the CT variables consisted of admission Marshall CT grade, presence of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (tSAH), and presence of extradural hematoma [31, 32]. The various CPPopt metrics described earlier were then added to these models.

Using bootstrapping methods, the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values and their associated confidence intervals were calculated for each model and reported alongside with Akaike information criteria (AIC), p values, and Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2. Finally, the additional variance in outcome transition attributable to the CPPopt metrics, over the standardized multivariable models, was assessed by calculating the difference in Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2. All p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) method, developed by Benjamini and Hochberg, with alpha set to 0.05 [33]. Given the exploratory nature of this study, the FDR approach was selected over the conventional Bonferroni method to preserve statistical power while simultaneously addressing the need for some degree of correction for multiple comparisons.

Results

Patient population

At the time of analysis, a total of 110 patients from the Winnipeg Acute TBI Database had complete data sets with 6-month GOSE scores. However, CPPopt values were not possible to calculate in seven of the patients, leaving 103 patients to be included in this study. A total of four patients had their ICP monitored using an EVD, while intra-parenchymal strain gauge probes were used in the rest of the cohort. The median age of the entire cohort was 42 years (IQR = 27–56.5 years) and the median admission GCS score was 7 (IQR = 4–8). The proportion of the cohort that was male was 81%. The median recording duration was 69.6 h (IQR = 36.37–122.2 h). Patient demographics and cerebral physiology can be found summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1 Patient demographics
Full size table
Table 2 Patient cerebral physiology summary
Full size table

Comparisons between dichotomized groups

The results of the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing for Alive vs. Dead and Favorable vs. Unfavorable are available in Additional file 1: Appendices A–C, organized by the respective month used for dichotomization, months 1, 3, and 6.

The results of the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing for transition in outcome (Improved vs. Not Improved) between 1 and 3 months, and 1 and 6 months are presented in Table 3. Only two demographic variables showed statistically significant differences between the two cohorts. Age was greater in the Not Improved group, and length of hospital stay was greater in the Improved group. For the cerebrovascular reactivity indices, only PAx and RAC produced statistically significant differences. Mean PAx and RAC, as well as % time spent above their thresholds, were consistently higher in the Not Improved group for both transition periods. PRx failed to produce any statistically significant results. All three CPPopt means; CPPopt–PRx, CPPopt–PAx, and CPPopt–RAC; failed to produce any significant results. However, the following CPPopt metrics were significantly greater in the Improved group for the 1–6-month transition period: % time with ΔCPPopt–PRx > 10 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–PAx > 5 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–PAx > 10 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC > 5 mmHg, and % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC > 10 mmHg. In addition, % time with CPP below the LLR–PAx was significantly greater in the Not Improved group. No CPPopt metric produced statistically significant results for the 1–3-month transition period. The Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing results for the 3–6-month transition period are presented in Additional file 1: Appendix D, as none of the variables, neither demographic nor physiologic, produced statistically significant differences.

Table 3 Mann–Whitney U/Chi-square testing of physiologic and demographic data for improved/not improved (1–3 months and 1–6 months)
Full size table

The results the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing for transition in outcome, with those who died (GOSE 1) removed (n = 69), are presented in Additional file 1: Appendices E–G, partitioned by transition period. All p values fell out of statistical significance. This is likely explained by a reduced number of patients remaining in the Not Improved group after removal of those who died. The Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing results for the age trichotomized data can be found in Additional file 1: Appendices H–J, partitioned by transition period.

Histograms plots comparing the Improved and Not Improved cohorts for % times that patients spent with their CPP 5 mmHg below/above CPPopt are presented in Fig. 1. For CPP below CPPopt (ΔCPP < −5 mmHg), the distribution for the Improved group was shifted more towards lower % times compared to the Not Improved group, while for CPP above CPPopt (ΔCPP > 5 mmHg), the distribution for the Improved group was shifted more towards greater % times compared to the Not Improved group. Histogram plots comparing the Improved and Not Improved cohorts for % times that patients spent with their CPP 10 mmHg below/above CPPopt presented similar findings and can be found in Additional file 1: Appendix K.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Histograms comparing Improved and Not Improved Patients for % time with ΔCPPopt above/below 5 mmHg. Left panel illustrates the distributions of improved (top) vs. Not Improved (bottom) patients for % time with ΔCPPopt below 5 mmHg. Right panel illustrates the distributions of improved (top) vs. Not Improved (bottom) patients for % time with ΔCPPopt above 5 mmHg. CPPopt cerebral perfusion pressure optimum

Full size image

Logistic regression analysis

Univariate logistic regression results for the various CPPopt metrics are presented in Table 4. None of the metrics produced statistically significant results for the 1–3-month transition period. For the 3–6-month period, only % time with ΔCPPopt–PAx > 5 mmHg and % time with ΔCPPopt–PAx < −5 mmHg produced significant p values. The 1–6-month period produced significant results for the following metrics: % time with ΔCPPopt–PRx > 5 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–PRx > 10 mmHg, ΔCPPopt–PAx > 5 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–PAx > 10 mmHg, % time with CPP below the LLR–PAx, % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC > 5 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC > 10 mmHg, % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC < −5 mmHg, and % time with ΔCPPopt–RAC < −10 mmHg. Similar with the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing results, most p values fell out of significance once those who died (GOSE 1) were removed, see Additional file 1: Appendix L. Results for the age trichotomized data can be found in Additional file 1: Appendix M.

Table 4 Univariate models of cerebrovascular reactivity measures for transition in outcome
Full size table

The multivariable logistic regression results are presented in Additional file 1: Appendices N–P, separated by transition period. All four of the standardized multivariable models; IMPACT Core, Core + CT, Core + CT + % time with ICP > 20 mmHg, and Core + CT + % time with ICP > 22 mmHg, as well as the models with CPPopt metrics added reached statistical significance for all three time periods. When those who died (GOSE 1) were removed, all models remained statistically significant for the 1–3-month and 1–6-month transition periods, while some fell out of significance for the 3–6-month period. These results can be found in Additional file 1: Appendices Q–S. Results for the age trichotomized data can be found in Additional file 1: Appendices T–V.

Additional variance in outcome transition

The differences in Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2 between the models with CPPopt metrics added and the standardized multivariable models alone are presented in Table 5. These values represent the added variance in outcome transition that the CPPopt variables offer over the standardized multivariable models. Overall, most of the CPPopt metrics were able to provide additional variance in outcome for all three time periods. These results held for the most part when those who were dead (GOSE 1) were removed, see Additional file 1: Appendix W. The results from the age trichotomized data can be found in Additional file 1: Appendix X.

Table 5 Added variance in transition in outcome from cerebrovascular reactivity measures over IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg
Full size table

To help visualize the amount of added variance in outcome transition that the various CPPopt variables provide over the base models, a stacked bar chart is presented in Fig. 2. Among the respective CPPopt metrics of each cerebrovascular reactivity index, time spent above CPPopt generally provided more additional variance in outcome transition than time spent below CPPopt. In addition, time spent below/above the LLR/ULR generally performed the best for each cerebrovascular reactivity index, except for PRx, where these parameters added little variance in outcome transition. Overall, Pax-based CPPopt metrics provided the most additional variance in outcome transition, while PRx-based metrics offered the least. Finally, as one would expect, the > 10 mmHg above/below CPPopt parameters performed better than their respective > 5 mmHg parameters.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Stacked bar chart of the added variance in transition in outcome of the CPPopt variables over the Core, Core + CT, and Core + CT + ICP > 20 mmHg base models. This stacked bar chart illustrates the amount of added variance in transition in outcome between 1- and 3-month post-TBI that the various CPPopt variables provided over the Core, Core + CT, and Core + CT + ICP > 20 mmHg Base Models. The Core model consisted of age, admission Glasgow Coma Scale—motor score, and admission pupillary response. CT variables consisted of admission Marshall CT grade, presence of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and presence of epidural hematoma. AMP pulse amplitude of ICP, CPP cerebral perfusion pressure, CPPopt cerebral perfusion pressure optimum, CT computed tomography, ICP intracranial pressure, LLR lower limit of reactivity, PAx pulse amplitude index, PRx pressure reactivity index, RAC correlation (R) between slow-waves of AMP (A) and CPP (C), ULR upper limit of reactivity

Full size image

Discussion

Through our investigation on the association between CPPopt metrics and improvement in outcome, we uncovered several interesting findings. Findings of the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square testing are discussed in Additional file 1: Appendix Y. The main findings of this study are those regarding CPPopt. Through logistic regression analysis and Mann–Whitney U testing, we were able to demonstrate an association between CPPopt metrics; derived using PRx, PAx, and RAC; and improvement in outcome over time. We found that increased time spent with actual CPP below CPPopt, ΔCPPopt < −5 mmHg and ΔCPPopt < −10 mmHg, or below the LLR are associated with failure to improve in outcome. This in keeping with existing literature [2, 6, 8, 11]. Furthermore, through the use of differences in Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2, we were able to demonstrate that time spent below CPPopt, as well as below the LLR, offers additional prognostic utility for predicting outcome transition when controlling for intracranial hypertension and other variables with known associations with outcome. This highlights the importance of maintaining sufficient CPP, in tandem with ICP control, when managing patients who have suffered TBI.

Looking at the results of the logistic regression analyses, we can see that time spent with ΔCPPopt > 5 mmHg, ΔCPPopt > 10 mmHg, and CPP above the ULR generally showed weak associations with transition in outcome. However, looking at the Mann–Whitney U testing results, we see that increased time above these thresholds were surprisingly associated with improvement in outcome rather than failure to improve in outcome. The fact that these results are not showing an association with failure to improve in outcome is actually consistent with some recent literature which has found that only time spent below CPPopt was associated with outcome, while time spent above was not [2, 6]. Furthermore, it is also in line with current thoughts that avoiding time spent with CPP below CPPopt, especially the LLR, is crucial while preventing hyperemic CPP, as long as not extremely elevated, may not actually affect outcome too significantly [2, 34, 35]. In a study comparing brain tissue oxygenation with various physiologic metrics, Wettervik et al. showed that brain tissue oxygenation decreases significantly at lower CPP and ΔCPPopt values; however, only suffers from mild reduction at high CPP values [34]. Thiara et al. conducted a study that refuted the existence of an association between the elevated CPP and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome [35]. Donnelly et al. found that spending time with CPP below 60 mmHg or with ΔCPPopt < −10 mmHg was related to death, while spending time with CPP above 70 mmHg or with ΔCPPopt > 10 mmHg was not [2]. These results all point towards the notion that preventing cerebral hyperperfusion may not play a major role in reducing poor outcomes. However, our data suggest that spending time with CPP above CPPopt is not only not associated with failure to improve in outcome but may also be correlated with patients improving in outcome. The study by Donnelly et al. provides support for this possibility as they found that both time spent with CPP above 70 mmHg and time spent with ΔCPPopt > 10 mmHg exhibited inverse relationships with mortality [2]. Considering the findings discussed above, it may be conceivable that maintaining CPP above CPPopt actually helps promote recovery. One potential explanation for this is that the injured brain, which is actively attempting to repair itself, may require greater blood flow than the healthy brain due to increased energy requirements and waste production. This would be quite interesting as it would indicate that CPPopt is not an “optimal” target as currently believed, but rather a lower limit threshold. However, it is important to acknowledge that our results suffer from multiple limitations, discussed in the limitations section, which prevent us from making any strong statements.

Comparing the cerebrovascular reactivity metrics that CPPopt derivations were based on, we found that there were no significant differences in associations with outcome transition; however, AMP-based indices (CPPopt–PAx and CPPopt–RAC) generally performed better, particularly PAx according to the results of Fig. 2. This may be explained by the fact that AMP-based indices have been shown to possibly be superior to PRx for predicting long-term outcome [26, 36,37,38]. This somewhat contrasts a study by Zeiler et al. which found that CPPopt metrics based on PRx and RAC performed similarly for long-term outcome prediction, and that CPPopt metrics based on PAx were poorly correlated with outcome [6]. However, this may be explained by the limited sample size of our study. To help demonstrate that differences between the three cerebrovascular reactivity indices exist, we present linear regressions and LOESS curves illustrating their relationships with ICP in Additional file 1: Appendix Z. For a further discussion on the influences of ICP on cerebrovascular reactivity, please refer to Additional file 1: Appendix Y.

Most of our findings held true in general, although weaker, when those who died (GOSE 1) were removed (n = 69). This suggests that CPPopt metrics can provide additional utility in outcome transition prognostication for patients who have survived their TBI. Our findings also generally held true when patients were trichotomized based on age. However, it should be noted that, due to the small sample sizes of the individual age cohort, many models were unable to converge. Therefore, the results from this secondary analysis should be considered with caution.

Lastly, our results were generally strongest for the 1–6-month transition period, suggesting that CPPopt metrics provide more utility in predicting outcome transition over longer intervals of time. This is supported by our previous study, which found that the 1–6-month interval produced the most robust associations between cerebrovascular reactivity metrics and outcome transition [12]. This finding may be explained by the fact that longer time intervals allow for more time for the neuronal recovery mentioned above to take place, indicating that the effects that optimization of cerebrovascular reactivity during the acute phase post-TBI has on neuronal recovery continues on outside of the ICU. Despite the interesting findings uncovered here, it must be highlighted that this study is preliminary in nature and requires further validation. Particularly, additional work is needed to clarify the importance of spending time above CPPopt or the ULR on long-term outcomes.

Limitations

In light of the noteworthy findings uncovered, it is important to acknowledge some significant limitations of this study. Firstly, a notable shortcoming is the relatively small sample size used. While some of the results achieved statistical significance, it is recommended to exercise caution when interpreting associations between cerebral physiologic metrics and outcome when sample sizes fall below 100 [39]. Though our study did have more than 100 patients, a far greater sample size would be ideal to increase statistical power and reduce the risk of misleading results. Consequently, to validate these findings, further investigation involving larger multi-center data sets is warranted. Moreover, it is essential to note that the data utilized in this study originates from a single institution, thereby limiting the generalizability of the results to the broader population. This further underscores the necessity for validation through the utilization of a multi-center database.

Another limitation of this study is that many of the associations discussed did not consistently produce statistically significant p values. This is likely in part due to the small sample size. This inconsistency unfortunately prevents us from making any strong statements about the associations we found. This further necessitates validation studies on the associations found. In regard to correction for multiple comparisons, some may argue that the fact that we did not use the conventional Bonferroni method may potentially be not conservative enough and put our results at risk of Type I errors. However, due to the exploratory nature of our study, we decided that maximizing statistical power, while still correcting for multiple comparisons, was more suitable. Another limitation of this study is that we only evaluated patients’ outcomes up to 6-month post-TBI, masking any further improvements that may occur over longer periods of recovery. The inclusion of longer term outcome data, such as from 12-month follow-ups, would have allowed us to better assess associations with long-term improvements.

Moving forward, there needs to be a large multi-centered validation study on the relationship between time spent with CPP above CPPopt, as well as above the ULR, and long-term outcome. In addition, further work is needed on the optimization of the CPPopt algorithm and comparing the various algorithms to determine which produces the most clinically beneficial CPPopt derivation. This will also require large multi-centered data sets. Such work is currently in progress by our lab group. In addition, the ongoing multi-center CAnadian High-Resolution TBI (CAHR-TBI) Research Collaborative, which our lab is the lead center of, is optimally positioned to tackle such important questions as the largest high-frequency cerebral physiology database in the world.

Conclusion

In this study, we showed that time spent with actual CPP below CPPopt is associated with failure to improve in outcome, supporting the existing narrative. More interestingly, we also presented data suggesting that spending time with CPP above CPPopt is not associated with failure to improve in outcome and is possibly even related to improved outcome. However, due to limitations of this study, namely small sample size, we are unable to make any conclusive statements. Further work is needed to validate the findings uncovered here.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets analyzed in this study are currently not publicly available as the Canadian and EU jurisdictions, including the research ethics boards and regional privacy bodies under which data were collected, do not allow for data sharing.

Abbreviations

ABP:

Arterial blood pressure

AIC:

Akaike information criteria

AMP:

Pulse amplitude of ICP

AUC:

Area under the curve

BTF:

Brain Trauma Foundation

CAHR-TBI:

Canadian High-Resolution TBI Research Collaborative

CPP:

Cerebral perfusion pressure

CPPopt:

Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure

CSV:

Comma separated values

CT:

Computed tomography

FDR:

False discovery rate

GCS:

Glasgow coma score

GOSE:

Glasgow outcome scale-extended

ICM + :

Intensive care monitoring “Plus”

ICP:

Intracranial pressure

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IMPACT:

International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials

IQR:

Interquartile range

LLR:

Lower limit of reactivity

MAP:

Mean arterial pressure

PAx:

Pulse amplitude index

PRx:

Pressure reactivity index

RAC:

Correlation (R) between AMP (A) and CPP (C)

TBI:

Traumatic brain injury

tSAH:

Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage

ULR:

Upper limit of reactivity

References

  1. Steiner LA, Czosnyka M, Piechnik SK et al (2002) Continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pressure reactivity allows determination of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 30:733–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Donnelly J, Czosnyka M, Adams H et al (2017) Individualizing thresholds of cerebral perfusion pressure using estimated limits of autoregulation. Crit Care Med 45:1464–1471. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002575

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Aries MJH, Czosnyka M, Budohoski KP et al (2012) Continuous determination of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 40:2456–2463. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182514eb6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beqiri E, Smielewski P, Robba C et al (2019) Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol. BMJ Open 9:e030727–e030727. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030727

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tas J, Beqiri E, van Kaam RC et al (2021) Targeting autoregulation-guided cerebral perfusion pressure after traumatic brain injury (COGiTATE): a feasibility randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurotrauma 38:2790–2800. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2021.0197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M et al (2019) Comparison of performance of different optimal cerebral perfusion pressure parameters for outcome prediction in adult traumatic brain injury: a collaborative european neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) study. J Neurotrauma 36:1505–1517. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2018.6182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dias C, Silva MJ, Pereira E et al (2015) Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management at bedside: a single-center pilot study. Neurocrit Care 23:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-0103-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petkus V, Preiksaitis A, Chaleckas E et al (2020) Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: targeted treatment for severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 37:389–396. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Donnelly J, Czosnyka M, Adams H et al (2019) Twenty-Five years of intracranial pressure monitoring after severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective, single-center analysis. Neurosurgery 85:E75–E82. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lang EW, Kasprowicz M, Smielewski P et al (2015) Short pressure reactivity index versus long pressure reactivity index in the management of traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg 122:588–594. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.JNS14602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beqiri E, Zeiler FA, Ercole A et al (2023) The lower limit of reactivity as a potential individualised cerebral perfusion pressure target in traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI high-resolution sub-study analysis. Crit Care 27:194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04485-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stein KY, Froese L, Gomez A et al (2022) Association between cerebrovascular reactivity in adult traumatic brain injury and improvement in patient outcome over time: an exploratory analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05366-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernard F, Gallagher C, Griesdale D et al (2020) The Canadian high-resolution traumatic brain injury (CAHR-TBI) research collaborative. Can J Neurol Sci 47:551–556. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2020.54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chesnut R, Videtta W, Vespa P et al (2014) Intracranial pressure monitoring: fundamental considerations and rationale for monitoring. Neurocrit Care 21(Suppl 2):S64-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-0048-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas E, NACCS, Czosnyka M, et al (2015) Calculation of cerebral perfusion pressure in the management of traumatic brain injury: joint position statement by the councils of the Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society of Great Britain and Ireland (NACCS) and the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS). Br J Anaesth 115:487–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carney N, Totten AM, Oreilly C et al (2017) Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery 80:6–15. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jennett B (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain injury. Lancet 305:480–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92830-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Calviello LA, Czigler A, Zeiler FA et al (2020) Validation of non-invasive cerebrovascular pressure reactivity and pulse amplitude reactivity indices in traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 162:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04169-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Calviello L, Donnelly J, Cardim D et al (2018) Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure and its association with outcome after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 28:212–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-017-0475-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M et al (2019) Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure versus intracranial pressure for outcome association in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 161:1275–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03915-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fraser CD, Brady KM, Rhee CJ et al (2013) The frequency response of cerebral autoregulation. J Appl Physiol 115:52–56. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00068.2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Howells T, Johnson U, McKelvey T, Enblad P (2015) An optimal frequency range for assessing the pressure reactivity index in patients with traumatic brain injury. J Clin Monit Comput 29:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-014-9573-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Czosnyka M, Smielewski P, Kirkpatrick P et al (1997) Continuous assessment of the cerebral vasomotor reactivity in head injury. Neurosurgery 41:11–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199707000-00005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sorrentino E, Diedler J, Kasprowicz M et al (2012) Critical thresholds for cerebrovascular reactivity after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 16:258–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-011-9630-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zeiler FA, Lee JK, Smielewski P et al (2018) Validation of intracranial pressure-derived cerebrovascular reactivity indices against the lower limit of autoregulation, part ii: experimental model of arterial hypotension. J Neurotrauma 35:2812–2819. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2017.5604

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Aries MJH, Czosnyka M, Budohoski KP et al (2012) Continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular reactivity using pulse waveform of intracranial pressure. Neurocrit Care 17:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-012-9687-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeiler FA, Donnelly J, Smielewski P et al (2018) Critical thresholds of intracranial pressure-derived continuous cerebrovascular reactivity indices for outcome prediction in noncraniectomized patients with traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 35:1107–1115. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2017.5472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stein K, Froese L, Sekhon MS et al (2023) intracranial pressure-derived cerebrovascular reactivity indices and their critical thresholds: a Canadian High Resolution-TBI (CAHR-TBI) validation study. J Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2023.0374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Güiza F, Depreitere B, Piper I et al (2015) Visualizing the pressure and time burden of intracranial hypertension in adult and paediatric traumatic brain injury. Intensive Care Med 41:1067–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3806-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Beqiri E et al (2020) Association between cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring and mortality is preserved when adjusting for baseline admission characteristics in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI study. J Neurotrauma 37:1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6808

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Maas AIR, Marmarou A, Murray GD et al (2007) Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma 24:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.0024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P et al (2008) Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 5:e165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  34. Svedung Wettervik T, Beqiri E, Bögli SY et al (2023) Brain tissue oxygen monitoring in traumatic brain injury: part I-To what extent does PbtO2 reflect global cerebral physiology? Crit Care 27:339. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04627-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Thiara S, Griesdale DE, Henderson WR, Sekhon MS (2018) Effect of cerebral perfusion pressure on acute respiratory distress syndrome. Can J Neurol Sci 45:313–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2017.292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Batson C, Froese L, Gomez A et al (2021) Impact of age and biological sex on cerebrovascular reactivity in adult moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: an exploratory analysis. Neurotrauma Reports 2:488–501. https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2021.0039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeiler FA, Donnelly J, Menon DK et al (2018) A description of a new continuous physiological index in traumatic brain injury using the correlation between pulse amplitude of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure. J Neurotrauma 35:963–974. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2017.5241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M et al (2019) Univariate comparison of performance of different cerebrovascular reactivity indices for outcome association in adult TBI: a CENTER-TBI study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 161:1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03844-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cabella B, Donnelly J, Cardim D et al (2017) An association between ICP-Derived data and outcome in TBI patients: the role of sample size. Neurocrit Care 27:103–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-016-0319-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was directly supported through the Endowed Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) Chair in Neuroscience. FAZ is supported through the Endowed Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) Chair in Neuroscience/TBI Research Endowment, NSERC ((DGECR-2022-00260, RGPIN-2022-03621, ALLRP-578524-22, ALLRP-576386-22, I2IPJ 586104-23, and ALLRP 586244-23), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the MPI Neuroscience Research Operating Fund, the Health Sciences Centre Foundation Winnipeg, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) (Project #: 38583), Research Manitoba (Grant #: 3906 and 5429) and the University of Manitoba VPRI Research Investment Fund (RIF). KYS is supported through the NSERC CGS-D program (CGS D-579021-2023), University of Manitoba R.G. and E.M. Knight Graduate Fellowship (Doctoral) in Biomedical Engineering, and the University of Manitoba MD/PhD program. LF is supported through a Research Manitoba PhD Fellowship, the Brain Canada Thomkins Travel Scholarship, NSERC (ALLRP-578524-22, ALLRP-576386-2) and the Graduate Enhancement of Tri-Council Stipends (GETS)—University of Manitoba. AG is supported through a CIHR Fellowship (Grant #: 472286). ASS is supported through the University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship (UMGF)—Biomedical Engineering, NSERC (RGPIN-2022-03621), and the Graduate Enhancement of Tri-Council Stipends (GETS)—University of Manitoba. NV is supported by NSERC (RGPIN-2022-03621, ALLRP-576386-22). AI is supported by a University of Manitoba Dept of Surgery GFT Grant, the University of Manitoba International Graduate Student Entrance Scholarship (IGSES), and the University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship (UMGF) in Biomedical Engineering. TB is supported through the Undergraduate Research Award—University of Manitoba.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Kevin Y. Stein, Logan Froese, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Nuray Vakitbilir, Abrar Islam & Frederick A. Zeiler

  2. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Alwyn Gomez, Younis Ibrahim & Frederick A. Zeiler

  3. Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Science, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

    Alwyn Gomez

  4. Undergraduate Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Izabella Marquez, Fiorella Amenta & Tobias Bergmann

  5. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Frederick A. Zeiler

  6. Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Frederick A. Zeiler

  7. Pan Am Clinic Foundation, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Frederick A. Zeiler

Authors
  1. Kevin Y. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Logan Froese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alwyn Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nuray Vakitbilir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Younis Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abrar Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Izabella Marquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fiorella Amenta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tobias Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Frederick A. Zeiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KYS: investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing; LF: investigation, formal analysis, writing; AG: data curation, writing—review and editing; ASS: writing; NV: writing; YI: writing; AI: writing; TB: writing; IM: writing; FA: writing; FAZ: conceptualization, data curation, writing, supervision, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Y. Stein.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for all facets of data collection for the ongoing Winnipeg Acute TBI Database have been obtained from the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (H2017:181, H2017:188), the Shared Health Services Manitoba Research Impact Committee, and the Patient Privacy Offices of Manitoba (RI2017:078 and RI:2017:076). Since all collected data are thoroughly de-identified to the point that it cannot be traced back to any individual patient, the data collection process has been approved to operate under a waived consent model by both the research ethics board and the provincial patient privacy offices of Manitoba. Retrospective access of this database for this outcome analysis has also been approved by the local ethics board (H2020:118).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Appendix A.

Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Alive/Dead and Favorable/Unfavorable at 1 month. Appendix B. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Alive/Dead and Favorable/Unfavorable at 3 months. Appendix C. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Alive/Dead and Favorable/Unfavorable at 6 months. Appendix D. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (3–6 months). Appendix E. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (1–3 months) with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix F. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (3–6 months) with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix G. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (1–6 months) with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix H. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (1–3 months) with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix I. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (3–6 months) with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix J. Mann–Whitney U/Chi-Square Testing of Physiologic and Demographic Data for Improved/Not Improved (1–6 months) with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix K. Histograms Comparing Improved and Not Improved Patients for % time with ΔCPPopt above/below 10 mmHg. Appendix L. Univariate Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures for Transition in Outcome with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix M. Univariate Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures for Transition in Outcome with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix N. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 3 months. Appendix O. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 3 to 6 months. Appendix P. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 6 months. Appendix Q. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 3 months with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix R. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 3 to 6 months with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix S. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures + IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 6 months with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix T. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 3 months with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix U. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures for Transition in Outcome from 3 to 6 months with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix V. Multivariable Models of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures for Transition in Outcome from 1 to 6 months with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix W. Added Variance in Transition in Outcome of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures Over IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg with Those Who Died (GOSE = 1) Removed. Appendix X. Added Variance in Transition in Outcome of Cerebrovascular Reactivity Measures Over IMPACT Core ± CT ± ICP > 20 or 22 mmHg with Patients Trichotomized by Age. Appendix Y. Extended Discussion. Appendix Z. Graphical Illustration of the Relationships Between ICP and Cerebrovascular Reactivity

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stein, K.Y., Froese, L., Gomez, A. et al. Time spent above optimal cerebral perfusion pressure is not associated with failure to improve in outcome in traumatic brain injury. ICMx 11, 92 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00579-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00579-3

Keywords