Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 2984

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : May | Volume : 18 | Issue : 5 | Page : OC27 - OC32 Full Version

Exploring Cerebral Perfusion Transcranial Doppler Parameters in Patients Admitted to Combined Medical Surgical Intensive Care Unit


Published: May 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/64917.19398
Thomas Isiah Sudarsan, Bhuvanna Krishna

1. Associate Professor, Department of Critical Care, Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Critical Care, St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Thomas Isiah Sudarsan,
61-3A1, Kagithapaterai, CMC Campus, College of Nursing Campus, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: thomassudarsan@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Encephalopathy, a common complication in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients, is often linked to poor outcomes. Transcranial Doppler (TCD), a non-invasive tool assesses cerebral perfusion via the Pulsatility Index (PI), Resistivity Index (RI), and Time-Averaged Peak (TAP) or Mean Flow Velocity (MFV). These parameters may offer insights into cerebral perfusion and outcomes in encephalopathic patients.

Aim: To describe the PI, RI of the Middle Cerebral Artery (MCA), and MFV or TAP measured by TCD in patients admitted to the ICU, comparing those with and without encephalopathy at the time of admission.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted from January 2019 to November 2020, in a combined medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary care hospital, involving 45 enrolled patients. Patients were evaluated within 24 hours of admission and subsequently every 24 hours until ICU discharge, death, or discharge against medical advice. Bilateral Middle cerebral artery TCD studies were conducted using a 1-5 MHz phased array probe or TCD mode through the transtemporal window. The PI, RI, and MFV were measured on both sides, with the higher value used for analysis, and all statistical analyses were performed using Statistics and Data 13 software.

Results: In the present study, 88% (n=40) of patients had encephalopathy (GCS <15 and RAAS less than or more than 0). The mean APACHE II score was 19 (14-25), indicating severe illness with a predicted mortality of 30-40%. Patients with encephalopathy had significantly higher APACHE II scores compared to those without (19.5 (16-25) vs 10 (4-19)). Although there was a trend towards a higher Pulsatility Index in encephalopathic patients at admission (1.11±0.378 vs 1.07±0.12, p=0.81), PI, RI, and TAP values did not significantly differ in non-survivors (1.12±0.49 vs 1.11±0.33, p=0.750). Persistent encephalopathy was associated with a trend towards higher PI at admission (1.05±0.24 vs 1.16±0.46; p=0.756), and a moderate correlation was found between decreasing PI and improvement in GCS (rho=-0.489, p=0.001).

Conclusion: PI, RI, and TAP at the time of admission were not found to be associated with occurrence and recovery of encephalopathy as well as mortality. The trend of change in PI moderately correlated with improvement in GCS suggesting the importance of trends rather than absolute values.

Keywords

Encephalopathy, Intensive care unit, Mean flow velocity, Pulsatility index, Resistivity index, Transcranial doppler

Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF) and perfusion are autoregulated over a wide range of mean arterial pressure in health and are affected by age, hematocrit, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, temperature as well as disease states with loss of autoregulation. These physiological and pathological factors are also known to vary and are abnormal in critically ill patients who are admitted with several disease states. The disease entities can be either structural or non-structural. Structural causes are those due to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), ischemia stroke, Intracerebral bleed (ICH), Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH), or due to Space-occupying Lesions (SOL). Non-structural causes are due to a variety of causes including metabolic, septic, toxic, and infective causes. The changes in CBF and CVR have been studied in these clinical situations, especially traumatic brain injury, Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE), and Sepsis-associated Encephalopathy (SAE) (1),(2).

Clinical surrogates of these abnormalities in the form of global cerebral dysfunction manifest as encephalopathy with variation in level of consciousness, and altered sensorium- hyperactive or hypoactive. Such encephalopathy is identified in critically ill patients by variation in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), agitation scores such as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS), or delirium identification scores such as CAM-ICU score (3),(4),(5),(6). Such changes in consciousness or sensorium have been identified as markers of increased mortality and morbidity in this cohort of patients. The pathophysiology behind these changes has been attributed to neuroregulatory dysfunction as well as cerebral circulatory disturbances.

These cerebral-circulatory disturbances in the form of variation in CBF and hence velocity as well as cerebrovascular resistance resulting in changes in Cerebral Perfusion Pressure (CPP) have been assessed by several invasive and non-invasive techniques. Among the non-invasive methods to study these parameters non-invasively are imaging techniques such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, sonology based Transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD), and Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter (ONSD) as well as near-infrared spectroscopy, visual-evoked potentials, etc., (7),(8),(9). Each of these provides intuitive information on CBF and cerebral blood flow as well as cerebral auto-regulation. Among these methods, TCD provides direct as well as indirect information on cerebral hemodynamics in the setting of traumatic brain injury by measuring the flow velocities in proximal intracranial arteries (10).

TCD is non-invasive, repeatable, real-time imaging of basal cerebral arteries especially the Middle Cerebral Artery (MCA) usually through a transtemporal window. Spectral analysis of the doppler waveform helps derive blood flow velocity which includes Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV), End-diastolic Velocity (EDV), and Mean Flow Velocity (MFV) measured as Time-averaged Peak or Mean (TAP/TAM). It also gives unitless indices based on the velocity measurements Pulsatility Index (PI) and Resistivity Index (RI) (11),(12),(13).

These parameters have been used to describe cerebral hemodynamic abnormalities in various diseases. Although several cross-sectional studies have described abnormalities in the TCD flow parameters, none have described their distribution and variation in the trend of PI, RI, and TAP values over time in ICU patients (14). It is still not known whether these parameters vary among patients in ICU with the presence or absence of encephalopathy, and whether in patients with encephalopathy are these parameters different in those who have resolution or persistence of encephalopathy. The ability of these parameters to predict other clinically relevant outcomes is also not well studied. A description of these parameters could provide insight into pathological changes in cerebral circulation such as hypoperfusive, hyperemic, or vasospastic pathologies with increased or decreased velocity and variation in PI or RI among these patients and whether it corresponds to clinical changes observed in the sensorium or altered level of consciousness. In the present study among patients being admitted to the ICU, the authors described TCD parameters of velocity, PI, and RI and evaluated their association with encephalopathy, level of consciousness, and changes in consciousness during their stay in the ICU.

Material and Methods

This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted from January 2019 to November 2020, at St John’s Medical College Hospital Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) (No. IEC/1/015/2019 dated 9 January 2019).

Inclusion criteria: Those patients aged 18 years and above and admitted to the medical ICU were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Consisted of age less than 18 years, known severe carotid stenosis (>50%) or occluded carotid arteries, inadequate transcranial Doppler window, patients with a history of mental retardation, patients not expected to survive for >24 hours in the ICU, cardiac arrhythmias at the time of measurement, penetrating trauma to the head or significant ocular trauma, and refusal of consent were excluded from the study.

Sample size estimation: was based on a two-sample comparison of means from a pilot study done by the principal investigator in medical ICU among 4 encephalopathic and 5 non-encephalopathic patients where TCD measurements of PI, PSV, EDV, MFV (TAP), and ONSD were calculated for a total of 27 times among these patients. Assuming a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 for a power of 80% the number needed was 11 patients with encephalopathy and 44 patients without encephalopathy. Accounting for dropouts and patients with inadequate sonographic windows a sample size of 60 has been selected. However, the final sample size was restricted to 45 given constraints of time.

Procedure

Patients were assessed within 24 hours post-admission and subsequently every 24 hours till discharge from ICU or death. Patients were included in the study only after obtaining informed consent. All transcranial doppler and other ultrasound-based evaluations such as optic nerve sheath diameter and echocardiography were performed by the principal investigator and one coinvestigator under supervision. All TCD, ONSD, and Echocardiographic measurements were taken sequentially within 30 minutes of each other for a patient. To avoid bias the TCD and ONSD measurements were taken before transcribing patient data on the data entry form.

TCD methods: All measurements were done with Sonosite ultrasound machine available in MICU using phased array low frequency Echocardiography probe 1-5 MHz in abdomen mode (penetration mode) or TCD mode with tissue harmonic imaging and multibeam set off or with TCD mode. The depth was set at 13-16 cm adequate to visualise the contralateral inner table of calvarium. The patient was positioned in the supine position with 30o head up for the transtemporal TCD window and for measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter. The transtemporal window, located above the zygomatic ridge between the lateral canthus of the eye and auricular pinna was used to insonate the proximal Middle cerebral artery. This was preceded by identifying on B-mode the butterfly-shaped midbrain or the lesser wing/sphenoid ridge. The depth was adjusted to 13-15 cm taking note of the probable depth at which the MCA is likely to be found (5-6 cm). Further optimisation was done by powering down the gain and switching to color doppler imaging to focus on the area anterior to the midbrain. Slowly increasing the color gain till it was over-gained and then bringing it down helped in getting the optimal color signal of the MCA where the flow was directed toward the probe (Red). A small color gate and slight free-hand adjustments of the probe help identify the best color flow and get the artery/vessel in line for pulse Doppler measurements. Once this was done pulse wave doppler was switched on to get a clear and crisp margin of spectra, with the maximum audio signal. The point of maximum deflection was taken for measurements. The maximum angle correction was less than 20o. Using the caliper controls the waveform was outlined manually or automatically to get the flow velocities, PI, and RI. These measurements were repeated on both sides. For analysis, the higher value of PI, and RI among the two sides was taken and the lower of the TAP was taken (15),(16),(17).

TCD calculations:

1) PI=(PSV-EDV)/MFV
2) RI=(PSV-EDV)/PSV
4) MFV=[PSV+(EDV×2)]/3

ONSD methods: ONSD measurements were done with a Linear high-frequency 6-13 MHz vascular probe in nerve mode. The patient was positioned supine or 30o heads up. The probe was placed longitudinally on the upper eyelid, slightly temporal to visualise the nerve with care to avoid the lens and avoid pressure on the orbit by resting the hand on the face. Measurements were taken 3 mm behind the globe (not the papilla) which has been shown to have the best contrast for measurements. ONSD measurement will be taken from inside the hyperechoic dural layer and perpendicular to the axis of the nerve (7),(17).

Echocardiography methods: Patients were evaluated with a 1-5 MHz cardiac probe equipped with Doppler Imaging. The apical 5-chamber view was used for measuring the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Velocity Time Integral (LVOT VTI) with a pulse doppler gate in between the LVOT distal to the aortic valve with minimal angle correction. LVOT Diameter was measured 0.5 cm below the level of the aortic valve at the point of maximum separation in the Parasternal Long Axis View (PLAX) view. LVOT VTI was measured in apical 5-chamber view (A5C) 0.5 cm below the level of the aortic valve (18).

An identification number and basic details of patients including age, sex, date of admission to hospital and ICU, duration and day of stay in ICU, source of ICU admission, date of discharge, outcomes, and cause of death were recorded from electronic patient information. Admission diagnosis and complications, co-morbidities (both with ICD code), Charleston co-morbidity index, and APACHE II score on the day of admission were also recorded. Clinical data such as GCS, RASS, presence of sepsis and probable focus, toxin exposure, type and toxidrome, CNS disease information, and use of drugs such as vasopressor and sedatives were also recorded from the patient admission sheet, flow chart, and drug chart on the day of admission and every 24 hours subsequently. Other relevant information such as hemodynamic data, data on mechanical ventilation at the time of TCD, and ABG values available nearest to the time of TCD were transcribed onto patient data form and were acquired from the patient charts and monitored at admission, and every 24 hours. Laboratory tests that were done as part of standard care such as Hemoglobin, LFT, and Creatinine as performed based on the discretion of the treating physician, were obtained from the patient’s records as mentioned for other parameters. TCD-based data included pulsatility and resistivity index and flow velocities such as PSV, EDV, MFV, and ONSD measurements on both sides.

Echocardiographic data included LVOT VTI, LVOT diameter, and CO. All measurements were done sequentially within 30 minutes of each other to avoid discrepancies in values arising from global macrocirculatory changes.

Encephalopathy was diagnosed when GCS was less than 15/15 and a RASS score other than zero. Resolution of encephalopathy was considered when GCS improved to 15/15 with a RASS of 0.

Encephalopathy: GCS <15/15 and RAAS < / > 0

No encephalopathy: GCS 15/15 and RASS=0

Initial TCD parameters of PI, RI, and TAP were described in patients with or without encephalopathy at admission. The resolution of encephalopathy was analysed with trends of PI.

The GCS in intubated patients was corrected for verbal score to categorise into mild, moderate, and severe using imputation values for Verbal score based on E and M scores at the time of observation (19). The imputation model was performed as well as a more complex model involving distinct combinations of eye and motor scores. This performed well when compared to actual verbal scores to determine prognosis in traumatic brain injury and neurosurgical patients when applied to the GCS-Pupils plus age plus CT findings (GCS-PA CT) prognostic model. The imputation model consisted of the following: EM scores 2-6, add 1; EM score 7, add 2; EM score 8 or 9, add 4; and EM score 10, add 5 to provide the GCS sum score. Modeling without information about the verbal score as per this method of imputation did not affect the predictive value of GCS when compared to scores with absolute values of the verbal score for GCS (Reduced the R2 from 32.1% to 31.4% and from 34.9% to 34.0% for predictions of death and favorable outcome at 6 months). Mild derangement in GCS was taken as scores of 13-15, moderate grades as scores of 9-12, and severe as less than 9. GCS grades at admission were described in patients with or without encephalopathy at admission. Improvement in GCS by a score of 2 during admission was analysed separately against the trend of the derived pulsatility index. Linear regression was done to analyse the absolute change in GCS from admission to discharge with change in PI values during ICU stay. Death and Discharge Against Medical Advice (DAMA) were considered together as mortality for analysis.

Statistical Analysis

The trend of TCD-based parameter PI was categorised on a Likert scale into decreasing, static, and increasing based on a 10 percent change from baseline at admission. Similarly, GCS was categorised into a Likert scale into mild, moderate, and severe after correction for the V score in intubated patients based on E and M scores. Also, encephalopathy was categorised into recovered and not recovered. Categorical and continuous variables were analysed using Chi-square, ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U depending on the distribution of data. Spearman’s correlation coefficient (bivariate analysis) was used to analyse the ordinal variables. This analysis was repeated after excluding non-encephalopathic patients. A bivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with poor outcomes. Linear regression was done between the change in GCS and the change in PI. Statistical analyses were done using the STATA 13 statistical package (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, United States).

Results

The enrolled 45 patients mean age was 46.71±19.3 years with the majority of the patients within the age group 45-65 years (35.6%). Males outnumbered the females by a ratio of 2.3:1. Of the total number of 45 patients 40 (88.9%) had encephalopathy and only 5 (11.1%) did not have encephalopathy. The distribution of GCS grades among these patients divided as mild, moderate, and severe was 33.3%, 28.9%, and 37.8 % respectively. The mean APACHE II score was 19.86±8.5 suggesting most patients were severely ill with predicted mortality of 30-40%. The mean duration of stay in ICU and of mechanical ventilation were 6±4.4 and 4±4.4 days respectively. Among all the patients studied 14 (31.1%) had poor outcomes (Death and DAMA). A total of (15.55%) underwent tracheostomy. A total of 12 (26.6%) had a shock at the time of TCD measurements. The mean PI at admission was 1.13±.34.

The mean APACHE-II (20.91.2±8.04 days vs 11.2±8.5, p=0.026), Length of ICU stay (6.3±4.5 days vs 3.2±1.3, p=0.05), and duration of mechanical ventilation (4.4±4.5 vs 0.6±1.34, p=0.01) were significantly different between patients with and without encephalopathy. Age, gender distribution, PI at admission, mortality, and need for tracheostomy were not significantly different between the two groups. All patients who did not have encephalopathy had only mild alternation in GCS whereas among the encephalopathic group, 25% were categorised as mild, 32.5% as moderate and 42.5% had severe alteration in GCS (Table/Fig 1).

The distribution of PI, RI, and TAP at admission was compared among all patients with different grades of GCS (Table/Fig 2).

The PI, RI, and TAP values at admission were compared among patients with encephalopathy against different grades of GCS. The PI and RI values between the groups were similar, whereas TAP values were high in patients with severe encephalopathy but it did not attain statistical significance (Table/Fig 3).

The values PI, RI, and TAP at admission among patients with encephalopathy and without encephalopathy during admission were analysed. The mean PI in the encephalopathic and non-encephalopathic groups were 1.14±0.36 and 1.07±0.12 respectively (p-value=0.814). The mean TAP in the encephalopathy and nonencephalopathic group were 62.01±24.35 and 54.9±23.88 respectively, however, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (Table/Fig 4).

The TCD parameters PI, RI, and TAP were compared between survivors and non-survivors in patients with encephalopathy. Although PI (1.12±0.49 vs 1.11±0.33, p=0.750), RI (0.64±0.14 vs 0.63±0.07, p=0.915) values were higher; TAP (47.45±20.54 vs 49.46±23.45, p=0.844) values were lower in non-survivors it did not reach statistical significance (Table/Fig 5).

Among patients with encephalopathy, PI, RI, and TAP were not statistically different between patients who had improved GCS and those who did not improve their GCS during their stay in ICU (Table/Fig 6).

Among patients with encephalopathy, TCD parameters PI, RI, and TAP were compared between patients in whom encephalopathy resolved vs those in whom persisted. Although PI (1.16±0.46 vs 1.05±0.24, p=0.756), RI (0.65±0.11 vs 0.61±.05, p=0.225) values were higher; TAP (47.88±21.46 vs 50.45±25.50, p=0.234) values were lower in patients in whom encephalopathy persisted but it did not reach statistical significance (Table/Fig 7).

The trend of decreasing PI correlated with improvement in GCS suggested by moderate correlation (rho=-0.379, p=0.010). This was even more significant when only encephalopathic patients were taken for analysis (rho=-0.489, p=0.001). The trend of decreasing PI did not however correlate with resolution of encephalopathy (rho=-0.262, p=0.097. The same was observed despite taking only patients with encephalopathy (rho -0.259, p=-0.085).

Logistic regression analysis was done between important TCD parameters at admission and clinically relevant outcomes of presence of encephalopathy (Table/Fig 8), against the presenting GCS (Table/Fig 9) and mortality (Table/Fig 10). There was no clinically significant association between any of the TCD parameters at admission in terms of the aforementioned outcomes or variables.

Logistic regression analysis was done between important TCD parameters at admission and clinically relevant outcomes of resolution of encephalopathy and improvement in GCS. There was no clinically significant association between any of the TCD parameters at admission in terms of the aforementioned outcomes or variables.

Linear regression was done by comparing the absolute change in GCS with the change in PI values and it was not statistically significant (p-value=0.076).

Discussion

The occurrence of acute brain dysfunction or encephalopathy, manifesting as an altered level of consciousness and awareness, is grossly under-reported and even by conservative estimates ranges from 50-80% among critically ill patients (20). The presence of altered mental status has been associated with disease severity and poor outcomes in various disease states (21). This has been widely recognised and therefore has been included as an essential component of various disease severity scores such as APACHE II and sequential organ failure score (SOFA) (22),(23). Cerebral circulatory abnormalities seen in encephalopathy are associated with changes in TCD parameters such as PI, MFV as well as RI. Such variations have been described in various conditions including TBI, hepatic encephalopathy, septic encephalopathy, toxic and metabolic encephalopathy such as myxoedema, and diabetic emergencies such as hyper oncotic nonketotic coma (24),(25). Abnormally high values of PI and low values of MFV have been seen in patients with TBI and other non-structural causes of encephalopathy and have correlated with worsening levels of consciousness and poorer outcomes in TBI as well as hepatic encephalopathy (24),(26). Most of these studies done previously have attempted to describe and characterise these alterations of cerebral circulation in pre-defined specific populations such as in head injury or hepatic encephalopathy. Whereas the changes in the cerebral circulation are dynamic in such patients and vary over time most studies have either looked at one-time measurements at admission or at prespecified discontinuous time points.

In the present study, the authors included a mixed population of patients being admitted to our ICU to describe and decipher whether PI, MFV, and RI were associated with encephalopathy, variation in level of consciousness, or could predict outcomes such as mortality and resolution of encephalopathy or improvement in level of consciousness (GCS). The authors here also measured daily trends in PI and compared them against trends in GCS and the resolution of encephalopathy.

The mean age of the present study population was 46.71±19.3 years with no significant difference in the distribution among patients with encephalopathy and those without. In the study done by Chan KH et. al. among patients with TBI, the mean age was 30-49 years probably reflecting the occurrence of TBI in at-risk groups with lower age (27). Whereas in a study by Pierrakos C et. al. among patients with sepsis and septic encephalopathy the mean age was 67±11 years probably reflecting similar demographics in a combined ICU (28). In the present study, males (68.9%) were the predominant group and similar observations have been reported in other studies (29),(30),(31). A total of 88% of patients in this study were encephalopathic as defined by GCS<15 and RAAS less than or more than 0 which is higher than that reported by Spronk PE et al., from a similar ICU in the Netherlands (20). The mean APACHE II score in the study population was 19 (14-25) suggesting most patients were severely ill with predicted mortality of 30-40% which was similar in other studies by Pierrakos among septic patients (15). There was a significant difference in APACHE II score between patients with encephalopathy and those without [median and IQR, 19.5 (16-25) vs 10 (4-19)] which suggests encephalopathy was associated with severity of illness, a finding consistently seen in other study population such as in TBI and hepatic encephalopathy. The predominant cause of encephalopathy was tropical fever (n=8), sepsis (n=8), and CVA (n=7), followed by uraemia (n=3), hepatic encephalopathy (n=3) and post-cardiac arrest encephalopathy (n=3) among others, suggestive of heterogeneous ICU population (32).

In this study Pulsatility index at admission was higher in patients with encephalopathy compared to patients without encephalopathy but it did not attain statistical significance (1.11±0.378 vs 1.07±0.12, p-value- 0.81). Studies done among cirrhosis patients have shown that those with Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE) had significantly higher PI and RI as compared to those without HE (24),(30). In another study, PI and RI were significantly different between sepsis patients with and without Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy (SAE). These results suggest the presence of increased cerebral vascular resistance and decreased blood flow velocity in patients with HE and SAE. In the present study, such an observation could not be replicated and could be due to variable etiological diagnosis and a smaller number of patients in the non-encephalopathy group.

In this study, the authors found that MFV measured as TAP at admission was higher in patients with severe encephalopathy but it was not statistically significant. Whereas in another study done in the UK in TBI patients TAP at the time of admission was significantly lower in severe TBI when compared to mild or moderate TBI which is contradictory to these findings. This could be explained by variable cerebral hemodynamic alteration in TBI which is predominantly hypoperfusive state in severe TBI as compared to hyperaemic response seen in septic patients who comprised the predominant group in our study (27),(33).

In the present study, PI and RI values were higher and TAP values were lower in non-survivors but did not reach statistical significance. A similar finding was observed in a study by Chan KH et al., in the UK among patients with TBI where TAP of less than 28 cm/s correctly predicted 80% of the early deaths (27). Another study done in India showed higher mortality (35% vs 14%) in patients with PI <1.1 and MFV <35 cm/sec when compared to those with normal TCD parameters (34). Yet another study from Turkey among cirrhotics showed PI and RI were correlated with the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores suggestive of higher mortality (29).

In the present study PI at admission was higher in patients with persistent encephalopathy but it did not attain statistical significance (1.05±0.24 vs 1.16±0.46; p=0.756). A similar observation was found in another study from France among patients with mild to moderate TBI, PI at admission predicted the development of late-onset neurological deterioration (1.04 vs 1.24; p=0.05). Though the PI at admission was higher in patients who did not recover from encephalopathy in this study it did not attain statistical significance as the present population predominantly included tropical fever and sepsis including the lesser sample size achieved (35).

In the present study trend of decreasing PI moderately correlated with improvement in GCS (rho=-0.489, p=0.001). In a study among TBI from the UK a significant in increase MFV (TAP) from baseline at admission (36.2 vs 47.8 cm/s) in patients who made a good recovery or had moderate disability as per GOS score at 6 months compared to those who were severely disabled (27). These findings are congruent with the present implicating that as the cerebral hemodynamics improve with reversal of cerebral vasoconstriction it could also predict improvement in sensorium and resolution of altered brain function.

Previous studies have shown that TCD parameters at the time of admission in prespecified groups of patients (TBI, HE, Sepsis) were associated with the severity of encephalopathy and subsequent worsening of encephalopathy (2),(15),(24),(30),(34),(36). In the present study which included a heterogenous ICU population, the authors did not find similar observation, which could be explained by variable pathological changes in cerebral hemodynamics. However, trends in PI were correlated with improvement in GCS. This highlights the fact that rather single measurement of TCD parameters at the time of admission, flowing-up trends in TCD are of higher clinical utility.

Limitation(s)

Being an observational study it was not adequately powered to predict outcomes. The authors here were not able to achieve a pre-defined sample size due to the unprecedented present situation. Though trends are of more value in these clinical situations, obtaining daily trends is cumbersome. Further, also it might miss out on certain situations that might have changed the hemodynamics in the cerebral circulation. Our definition of encephalopathy based on GCS and RAAS scores was not validated compared to other scoring systems such as the CAM-ICU score. This could have possibly affected the results of the study. Also, TCD values are likely to be of more value if taken together with other parameters as part of multimodal neuromonitoring.

Conclusion

In this prospective observation, the authors here looked at the utility of TCD parameters at admission and their trends in predicting occurrence and recovery of encephalopathy. The present results suggest that PI, RI, and TAP at the time of admission were not found to be associated occurrence and recovery of encephalopathy as well as mortality. The trend of change in PI moderately correlated with improvement in GCS suggesting the importance of trends. Further studies with adequate sample size are required to find the utility and place of TCD monitoring in a mixed population of critically ill patients.

References

1.
Bjerring PN, Gluud LL, Larsen FS. Cerebral blood flow and metabolism in hepatic encephalopathy-A meta-analysis. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2018;8:286. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCEH.2018.06.002. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Kelly DF, Martin NA, Kordestani R, Counelis G, Hovda DA, Bergsneider M, et al. Cerebral blood flow as a predictor of outcome following traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:633-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1997.86.4.0633.[crossref][PubMed]
3.
Jalali R, Rezaei M. A comparison of the glasgow coma scale score with full outline of unresponsiveness scale to predict patients’ traumatic brain injury outcomes in intensive care units. Crit Care Res Pract. 2014;2014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/289803. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, Gordon S, Francis J, May L, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: Validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286:2703- 10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.286.21.2703. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, Brophy GM, O’Neal PV, Keane KA, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: Validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1338-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1164/RCCM.2107138. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Ramazani J, Hosseini M. Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and glasgow coma scale in medical intensive care unit. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(2):143-48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/ACA. ACA_25_18. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Chen LM, Wang LJ, Hu Y, Jiang XH, Wang YZ, Xing YQ. Ultrasonic measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter: A non-invasive surrogate approach for dynamic, real-time evaluation of intracranial pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(4):437-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/BJOPHTHALMOL- 2018-312934. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Steiner LA, Pfister D, Strebel SP, Radolovich D, Smielewski P, Czosnyka M. Near-infrared spectroscopy can monitor dynamic cerebral autoregulation in adults. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10(1):122-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/ S12028-008-9140-5. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Nakanishi H, Kurosaki M, Nakanishi K, Tsuchiya K, Noda T, Tamaki N, et al. Impaired brain activity in cirrhotic patients with minimal hepatic encephalopathy: Evaluation by near-infrared spectroscopy. Hepatol Res. 2014;44(3):319-26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/HEPR.12127. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Bouzat P, Almeras L, Manhes P, Sanders L, Levrat A, David JS, et al. Transcranial Doppler to Predict Neurologic Outcome after Mild to Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(2):346-54. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001165. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
D’andrea A, Conte M, Scarafile R, Riegler L, Cocchia R, Pezzullo E, et al. Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound: Physical Principles and Principal Applications in Neurocritical Care Unit. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2016;26(2):28-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/2211-4122.183746. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
White H, Venkatesh B. Applications of transcranial Doppler in the ICU: A review. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(7):981-94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/ S00134-006-0173-Y. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Purkayastha S, Sorond F. Transcranial doppler ultrasound: Technique and application. Semin Neurol. 2012;32(4):411-420. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1055/S-0032-1331812. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Bellner J, Romner B, Reinstrup P, Kristiansson KA, Ryding E, Brandt L. Transcranial doppler sonography pulsatility index (PI) reflects intracranial pressure (ICP). Surg Neurol. 2004;62(1):45-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. surneu.2003.12.007. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Pierrakos C, Attou R, Decorte L, Kolyviras A, Malinverni S, Gottignies P, et al. Transcranial Doppler to assess sepsis-associated encephalopathy in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14:45. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2253-14-45. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Chang T, Li L, Yang Y, Li M, Qu Y, Gao L. Transcranial doppler ultrasonography for the management of severe traumatic brain injury after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e116-24. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2019.02.005. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Fantini S, Sassaroli A, Tgavalekos KT, Kornbluth J. Cerebral blood flow and autoregulation: Current measurement techniques and prospects for noninvasive optical methods. Neurophotonics. 2016;3(3):031411. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1117/1.NPH.3.3.031411. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Tan C, Rubenson D, Srivastava A, Mohan R, Smith MR, Billick K, et al. Left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral outperforms ejection fraction and Doppler-derived cardiac output for predicting outcomes in a select advanced heart failure cohort. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017;15(1):18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/S12947-017-0109-4. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Salottolo K, Panchal R, Madayag RM, Dhakal L, Rosenberg W, Banton KL, et al. Incorporating age improves the Glasgow Coma Scale score for predicting mortality from traumatic brain injury. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021;6(1):e000641. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/TSACO-2020-000641. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Spronk PE, Riekerk B, Hofhuis J, Rommes JH. Occurrence of delirium is severely underestimated in the ICU during daily care. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(7):1276-80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/S00134-009-1466-8. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Behrouz R, Godoy DA, Azarpazhooh MR, Di Napoli M. Altered mental status in the neurocritical care unit. J Crit Care. 2015;30(6):1272-77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCRC.2015.07.021. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Wong DT, Knaus WA. Predicting outcome in critical care: The current status of the APACHE prognostic scoring system. Can J Anaesth. 1991;38:374-83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03007629. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707-10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01709751. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Macías-Rodríguez RU, Duarte-Rojo A, Cantú-Brito C, Sauerbruch T, Ruiz- Margáin A, Trebicka J, et al. Cerebral haemodynamics in cirrhotic patients with hepatic encephalopathy. Liver Int. 2015;35(2):344-52. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1111/LIV.12557. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Mcquire JC, Sutcliffe JC, Coats TJ. Early changes in middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity after head injury. J Neurosurg. 1998;89(4):526-32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1998.89.4.0526. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Ziegler D, Cravens G, Poche G, Gandhi R, Tellez M. Use of transcranial doppler in patients with severe traumatic brain injuries. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(1):121-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/NEU.2015.3967. [crossref][PubMed]
27.
Chan KH, Miller JD, Dearden NM. Intracranial blood flow velocity after head injury: Relationship to severity of injury, time, neurological status and outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;55(9):787-91. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1136/JNNP.55.9.787. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Pierrakos C, Antoine A, Velissaris D, Michaux I, Bulpa P, Evrard P, et al. Transcranial doppler assessment of cerebral perfusion in critically ill septic patients: A pilot study. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3:28. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1186/2110-5820-3-28. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Öncel Ç, Yilmaz M. Cerebral hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2016;27(3):264-67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5152/TJG. 2016.15446. [crossref]
30.
Ponziani FR, Funaro B, Lupascu A, Ainora ME, Garcovich M, Caracciolo G, et al. Minimal hepatic encephalopathy is associated with increased cerebral vascular resistance. A transcranial doppler ultrasound study. Sci Rep. 2019;9:15373. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-019-51867-6. [crossref][PubMed]
31.
Zidan DH, Helmy TA, Taha A. Role of transcranial Doppler and FOUR score in assessment of sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care. 2017;4(4):209-12. Available from: https://doi. org/10.4103/ROAIC.ROAIC_109_16. [crossref]
32.
Alvarez-Fernández JA, Pérez-Quintero R. Use of transcranial Doppler ultrasound in the management of post-cardiac arrest syndrome. Resuscitation. 2009;80(11):1321- 22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESUSCITATION.2009.07.011. [crossref][PubMed]
33.
Martin NA, Patwardhan RV, Alexander MJ, Africk CZ, Lee JH, Shalmon E, et al. Characterization of cerebral hemodynamic phases following severe head trauma: Hypoperfusion, hyperemia, and vasospasm. J Neurosurg. 1997;87(1):09- 19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1997.87.1.0009. [crossref][PubMed]
34.
Prasad BKD, Chamarthi M, Isireddy P. Role of transcranial doppler as a predictor of prognosis in patients with traumatic brain injury. Int J Contemp Med Surg Radiol. 2017;2:139-42.
35.
Jaffres P, Brun J, Declety P, Bosson JL, Fauvage B, Schleiermacher A, et al. Transcranial Doppler to detect on admission patients at risk for neurological deterioration following mild and moderate brain trauma. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(6):785-90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/S00134-005-2630-4. [crossref][PubMed]
36.
Bowton DL, Bertels NH, Prough DS, Stump DA. Cerebral blood flow is reduced in patients with sepsis syndrome. Crit Care Med. 1989;17(5):399-403. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198905000-00004.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/64917.19398

Date of Submission: Feb 23, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Apr 11, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Apr 17, 2024
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 23, 2024
• Manual Googling: Apr 13, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Apr 15, 2024 (12%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com