Validation of a New Noninvasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Method by Direct Comparison with an Invasive Technique.

Autor: Cabella B; SAPRA Assessoria, São Carlos, Brazil.; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Vilela GH; SAPRA Assessoria, São Carlos, Brazil.; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Mascarenhas S; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. sergiomascarenhas28@gmail.com., Czosnyka M; Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Smielewski P; Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Dias C; University of Porto, Porto, Portugal., Cardim DA; Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil., Wang CC; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Mascarenhas P; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Andrade R; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Tanaka K; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Silva Lopes L; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Colli BO; University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement [Acta Neurochir Suppl] 2016; Vol. 122, pp. 93-6.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22533-3_18
Abstrakt: The search for a completely noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICPni) monitoring technique capable of real-time digitalized monitoring is the Holy Grail of brain research. If available, it may facilitate many fundamental questions within the range of ample applications in neurosurgery, neurosciences and translational medicine, from pharmaceutical clinical trials, exercise physiology, and space applications. In this work we compare invasive measurements with noninvasive measurements obtained using the proposed new noninvasive method. Saline was infused into the spinal channel of seven rats to produce ICP changes and the simultaneous acquisition of both methods was performed. The similarity in the invasive and noninvasive methods of ICP monitoring was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficients (r). Good agreement between measures < r > = 0.8 ± 0.2 with a range 0.28-0.96 was shown.
Databáze: MEDLINE