4.5 Article

High Intracranial Pressure Effects on Cerebral Cortical Microvascular Flow in Rats

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 775-785

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2010.1692

Keywords

brain edema; cerebrovascular shunts; intracranial hypertension; NADH; thoroughfare channels

Funding

  1. University of New Mexico (UNM) [P20 RR15636]
  2. NIH [NS061216, NS051639]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To manage patients with high intracranial pressure (ICP), clinicians need to know the critical cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) required to maintain cerebral blood flow (CBF). Historically, the critical CPP obtained by decreasing mean arterial pressure (MAP) to lower CPP was 60mm Hg, which fell to 30mm Hg when CPP was reduced by increasing ICP. We examined whether this decrease in critical CPP was due to a pathological shift from capillary (CAP) to high-velocity microvessel flow or thoroughfare channel (TFC) shunt flow. Cortical microvessel red blood cell velocity and NADH fluorescence were measured by in vivo two-photon laser scanning microscopy in rats at CPP of 70, 50, and 30mm Hg by increasing ICP or decreasing MAP. Water content was measured by wet/dry weight, and cortical perfusion by laser Doppler flux. Reduction of CPP by raising ICP increased TFC shunt flow from 30.4 +/- 2.3% to 51.2 +/- 5.2% (mean +/- SEM, p<0.001), NADH increased by 20.3 +/- 6.8% and 58.1 +/- 8.2% (p<0.01), and brain water content from 72.9 +/- 0.47% to 77.8 +/- 2.42% (p<0.01). Decreasing CPP by MAP decreased TFC shunt flow with a smaller rise in NADH and no edema. Doppler flux decreased less with increasing ICP than decreasing MAP. The decrease seen in the critical CPP with increased ICP is likely due to a redistribution of microvascular flow from capillary to microvascular shunt flow or TFC shunt flow, resulting in a pathologically elevated CBF associated with tissue hypoxia and brain edema, characteristic of non-nutritive shunt flow.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available