TY - JOUR
T1 - Between-centre variability in transfer function analysis, a widely used method for linear quantification of the dynamic pressure--flow relation: The CARNet study
AU - Aisha S.S Meel-van den Abeelen
AU - Simpson, David M.
AU - Lotte J.Y. Wang
AU - Cornelis H. Slump
AU - Zhang, Rong
AU - Tarumi, Takashi
AU - Caroline A. Rickards
AU - Payne, Stephen J.
AU - Mitsis, Georgios D.
AU - Kostoglou, Kyriaki
AU - Marmarelis, Vasilis Z.
AU - Shin, Dae C.
AU - Yu-Chieh Tzeng
AU - Philip N. Ainslie
AU - Gommer, Erik D.
AU - Müller, Martin
AU - Caicedo Dorado, Alexander
AU - Peter Smielewski
AU - Yelicich, Bernardo
AU - Puppo, Corina
AU - Liu Xiuyun
AU - Marek Czosnyka
AU - Cheng-Yen Wang
AU - Vera Novak
AU - Panerai, Ronney B.
AU - Claassen, Jurgen A.H.R.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Transfer function analysis (TFA) is a frequently used method to assess dynamic cerebral autoregulation (CA) using spontaneous oscillations in blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV). However, controversies and variations exist in how research groups utilise TFA, causing high variability in interpretation. The objective of this study was to evaluate between-centre variability in TFA outcome metrics. 15 centres analysed the same 70 BP and CBFV datasets from healthy subjects (n = 50 rest; n = 20 during hypercapnia); 10 additional datasets were computer-generated. Each centre used their in-house TFA methods; however, certain parameters were specified to reduce a priori between-centre variability. Hypercapnia was used to assess discriminatory performance and synthetic data to evaluate effects of parameter settings. Results were analysed using the Mann–Whitney test and logistic regression. A large non-homogeneous variation was found in TFA outcome metrics between the centres. Logistic regression demonstrated that 11 centres were able to distinguish between normal and impaired CA with an AUC > 0.85. Further analysis identified TFA settings that are associated with large variation in outcome measures.
AB - Transfer function analysis (TFA) is a frequently used method to assess dynamic cerebral autoregulation (CA) using spontaneous oscillations in blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV). However, controversies and variations exist in how research groups utilise TFA, causing high variability in interpretation. The objective of this study was to evaluate between-centre variability in TFA outcome metrics. 15 centres analysed the same 70 BP and CBFV datasets from healthy subjects (n = 50 rest; n = 20 during hypercapnia); 10 additional datasets were computer-generated. Each centre used their in-house TFA methods; however, certain parameters were specified to reduce a priori between-centre variability. Hypercapnia was used to assess discriminatory performance and synthetic data to evaluate effects of parameter settings. Results were analysed using the Mann–Whitney test and logistic regression. A large non-homogeneous variation was found in TFA outcome metrics between the centres. Logistic regression demonstrated that 11 centres were able to distinguish between normal and impaired CA with an AUC > 0.85. Further analysis identified TFA settings that are associated with large variation in outcome measures.
U2 - 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.002
DO - 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.002
M3 - Artículo
VL - 36
SP - 620
EP - 627
JO - Medical engineering & physics
JF - Medical engineering & physics
IS - 5
ER -