4.6 Review

Assessment of cerebral autoregulation in stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies at rest

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 2105-2116

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X19871013

Keywords

Cerebral blood flow; dynamic cerebral autoregulation; ischemic stroke; intracranial hemorrhage; transfer function analysis

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the Royal Thai Government - Dunhill Medical Trust [RTF1806\ 27]
  2. EPSRC [EP/K041207/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) has been shown to be impaired in cerebrovascular diseases, but there is a lack of consistency across different studies and the different metrics that have been proposed for assessment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses involving assessment of dCA in ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Thirty-three articles describing assessment of dCA with transfer function analysis (TFA) were included, with meta-analyses performed for derived parameters of gain, phase and autoregulation index (ARI). A total of 1233 patients were pooled from 12 studies on acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and two studies on intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). In comparison with controls, TFA phase of AIS was significantly reduced (nine studies), in both hemispheres (P < 0.0001). TFA gain provided inconsistent results, with reduced values in relation to controls, for both hemispheres. The ARI (six studies) was reduced compared to controls, in both hemispheres (P < 0.005). In ICH, gain showed higher values compared to controls for the unaffected (P = 0.01), but not for the affected hemisphere. Meta-analyses in AIS have demonstrated that phase and the ARI index can show highly significant differences in comparison with healthy controls, while ICH have been limited by the scarcity of studies and the diversity of units adopted for gain.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available