4.2 Article

Ocular Blood Flow Measured Using Laser Speckle Flowgraphy During Aortic Arch Surgery With Antegrade Selective Cerebral Perfusion

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 613-618

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2016.01.021

Keywords

aortic arch; cardiac surgery; cardiopulmonary bypass; ocular blood flow; cerebral protection; cerebral blood flow

Funding

  1. [25462449]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26462372, 25462449] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity of ocular blood flow measured using laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG) for the assessment of cerebral perfusion during aortic arch surgery. Design: A prospective study. Setting: A single university hospital. Participants: The study included 17 patients undergoing aortic arch surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (ASCP). Interventions: Measurement of ocular blood flow using LSFG. Measurements and Main Results: Measurement of ocular perfusion that is supplied mainly from the ophthalmic artery might be useful as an indicator of cerebral blood flow because the ophthalmic artery is the first branch of the internal carotid artery. Recently, LSFG has been developed for noncontact estimation of ocular perfusion using the laser speckle phenomenon. In this study, the LSFG system was used to measure blood flow in the optic nerve head during aortic arch surgery with CPB using ASCP. The blood flow in the optic nerve head during ASCP was statistically significantly reduced by 40.6% compared with the baseline value after anesthetic induction. Conclusions: Ocular blood flow measured using LSFG showed favorable validity for assessment of cerebral perfusion during aortic arch surgery with ASCP. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available