Skip Navigation



Brain Advance Access published online on May 11, 2005
Brain, doi:10.1093/brain/awh536
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
128/8/1931    most recent
awh536v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Menon, D. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Menon, D. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Received November 21, 2004
Revised April 6, 2005
Accepted April 10, 2005

Article

Physiological thresholds for irreversible tissue damage in contusional regions following traumatic brain injury

A. S. Cunningham 1, R. Salvador 2, J. P. Coles 1, D. A. Chatfield 1, P. G. Bradley 1, A. J. Johnston 1, L. A. Steiner 3, T. D. Fryer 2, F. I. Aigbirhio 2, P. Smielewski 2, G. B. Williams 2, T. A. Carpenter 2, J. H. Gillard 4, J. D. Pickard 5, and D. K. Menon 1*

1 Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
2 Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
3 Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
4 Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
5 Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
D. K. Menon, E-mail: dkm13{at}wbic.cam.ac.uk


  Abstract

Cerebral ischaemia appears to be an important mechanism of secondary neuronal injury in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is an important predictor of outcome. To date, the thresholds of cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebral oxygen utilization (CMRO2) for irreversible tissue damage used in TBI studies have been adopted from experimental and clinical ischaemic stroke studies. Identification of irreversibly damaged tissue in the acute phase following TBI could have considerable therapeutic and prognostic implications. However, it is questionable whether stroke thresholds are applicable to TBI. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine physiological thresholds for the development of irreversible tissue damage in contusional and pericontusional regions in TBI, and to determine the ability of such thresholds to accurately differentiate irreversibly damaged tissue. This study involved 14 patients with structural abnormalities on late-stage MRI, all of whom had been studied with 15O PET within 72 h of TBI. Lesion regions of interest (ROI) and non-lesion ROIs were constructed on late-stage MRIs and applied to co-registered PET maps of CBF, CMRO2 and oxygen extraction fraction (OEF). From the entire population of voxels in non-lesion ROIs, we determined thresholds for the development of irreversible tissue damage as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for CBF, CMRO2 and OEF. To test the ability of a physiological variable to differentiate lesion and non-lesion tissue, we constructed probability curves, demonstrating the ability of a physiological variable to predict lesion and non-lesion outcomes. The lower limits of the 95% confidence interval for CBF, CMRO2 and OEF in non-lesion tissue were 15.0 ml/100 ml/min, 36.7 µmol/100 ml/min and 25.9% respectively. Voxels below these values were significantly more frequent in lesion tissue (all P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test). However, a significant proportion of lesion voxels had values above these thresholds, so that definition of the full extent of irreversible tissue damage would not be possible based upon single physiological thresholds. We conclude that, in TBI, the threshold of CBF below which irreversible tissue damage consistently occurs differs from the classical CBF threshold for stroke (where similar methodology is used to define such thresholds). The CMRO2 threshold is comparable to that reported in the stroke literature. At a voxel-based level, however (and in common with ischaemic stroke), the extent of irreversible tissue damage cannot be accurately predicted by early abnormalities of any single physiological variable.

Keywords: traumatic brain injury; CBF; cerebral metabolism; physiological thresholds; prediction.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
H. White and B. Venkatesh
Cerebral Perfusion Pressure in Neurotrauma: A Review
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2008; 107(3): 979 - 988.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
C. Werner and K. Engelhard
Pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2007; 99(1): 4 - 9.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
J. P. Coles
Imaging after brain injury
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2007; 99(1): 49 - 60.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BrainHome page
D. J. Myer, G. G. Gurkoff, S. M. Lee, D. A. Hovda, and M. V. Sofroniew
Essential protective roles of reactive astrocytes in traumatic brain injury
Brain, October 1, 2006; 129(10): 2761 - 2772.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.