MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976124594 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000004461

Cerebral Oximetry and Mean Arterial Pressure: Not a Straight Relationship, the Flow Between?

2019· letter· en· W2976124594 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivier Desebbe, Alexandre Joosten, André Denault

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral autoregulationMean arterial pressureAnesthesiaOxygenationCerebral blood flowCerebral perfusion pressureAutoregulationCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor We read with great interest the substudy by Holmgaard et al1 that analyzed data from their original trial published in Circulation (Perfusion Pressure Cerebral Infarct Trial),2 with a new focus on the relationship between regional cerebral tissue oxygenation (rScO2) and the level of mean arterial pressure (MAP) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).1 The study gives us new insights regarding the target MAP that would be optimal during CPB. The authors showed that increasing MAP led to a decrease in rScO2 and concluded that (1) vasoconstrictors should not be used to optimize rScO2 and (2) the decrease of rScO2 might have been due to a cutaneous vasoconstriction contamination. We think that these conclusions, while potentially true, are debatable. Pump flow used in the original study2 was 2.69 L/min/m2, a high value as mentioned by the authors. Because rScO2 is primary impacted by flow rather than pressure,3 it could partly explain why rScO2 was high in both groups. Indeed, studies aiming at improving rScO2 per se showed much more desaturations wherein 12%–33% of the treated patients presented a cerebral desaturation load (CDL) upper than 20% of the baseline (CDL20), contrary to this study, where 0% of the patients presented a CDL20. As noted by the authors, rScO2 has been proposed as an acceptable surrogate of cerebral blood flow (CBF) to detect the lower and upper pressure limit of autoregulation.4 Then increasing MAP when rScO2 is already in the acceptable range (as CDL20 was 0) might be potentially harmful if the patient exceeds the upper limit pressure of autoregulation. Hence, another hypothesis than a contamination by cutaneous tissue of the small decrease of the rScO2 in the high MAP group could be that a cerebral arteriolar vasoconstriction might have occurred to limit a cerebral luxury perfusion in this state of high pump flow, as already experienced by Moerman et al.3 Making the distinction between cutaneous and cerebral vasoconstriction to explain the decrease of rScO2 would have needed a continuous measurement CBF, such as transcranial Doppler. On the other hand, using a vasoconstrictor when the MAP is below the lower limit of CBF autoregulation would increase the CBF and then the rScO2. Vasoconstrictors will have consequently different effects on rScO2 depending on the individual’s upper and lower limit of CBF autoregulation. Finally, this study highlights the importance of flow when optimizing cerebral perfusion. Working with higher pump flow may shift the CBF autoregulation plateau to the left and allow lower MAP during CPB. We totally agree with the authors that increasing MAP to increase rScO2 should not be the first step when a cerebral desaturation occurs, but we might consider a greater pump flow. Olivier Desebbe, MDDepartments of Anesthesiology and Intensive CareClinique de la SauvegardeLyon, FranceAlexandre Joosten, MD, PhDDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive CareHôpitaux Universitaires Paris-SudUniversité Paris-SudUniversité Paris-SaclayHôpital De BicêtreAssistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France[email protected]; [email protected]Andre Denault, MD, PhDDepartment of Anesthesia & Critical Care DivisionMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of MontrealMontreal, Quebec, Canada

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0110.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207