Continuous Measurement in Neurocritical Care of Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF) Calculated from ICP and Central Venous Pressure

TL;DR

This study introduces a new method to calculate cerebral blood flow in neurocritical care using intracranial pressure and central venous pressure measurements.

Contribution

A novel approach to estimate cerebral blood flow (CBF) from ICP and central venous pressure in neurocritical care settings is proposed and validated.

Findings

The calculated CBF (CBF(1)) showed strong correlation with measured data in nine subjects.

rICP and supine ICP values were highly similar, validating the CBF(1) method.

The method relies on the relationship between rICP and resistance of venous outflow (Rv).

Abstract

Background/Objectives: In neurocritical care, usually, the only continuous measurement of brain pathophysiology is intracranial pressure (ICP). The objective of this study was to find the relationship between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and parameters usually measured in neurocritical care, mainly central venous pressure and ICP. Methods: If the venous outflow of the CBF is considered, the CBF is controlled only by two parameters, the rICP (the ICP minus the venous blood pressure in the venous sinus at its outflow) and the Rv (the flow resistance of the soft-walled veins). For the rICP, the sinus blood pressure can be calculated from the central venous pressure (measured at the same horizontal level as the ICP) and the cervical venous flow resistance. For the Rv, the systolic ICP increase indicates the systolic arterial inflow volume, which then flows out before the diastole. The mean ICP increase divided by the mean outflow of the increased blood volume gives the Rv. This method of calculating the CBF by dividing the rICP by the Rv was named CBF(1). For validation of CBF(1), data from nine subjects in an open study were used. The data were ICP and MR blood flow measurements of arterial inflow and jugular vein outflow. Since the rICP, Rv, and CBF were unknown, an iterative method was needed to calculate these parameters. Results: The observed Rv and rICP values showed a close correlation, which indicated that CBF was dependant on the rICP only. Consequently, the comparison between the data in the study of the nine subjects, and the calculated values from CBF(1), boiled down to a comparison between the supine ICP values and the calculated rICP. The comparison showed that the rICP and supine ICP had highly significant similarity, and that the CBF(1) method was validated. Conclusions: A method for CBF measurement from ICP data in neurocritical care was found.