Table 2 Evidence table for cerebral perfusion pressure recommendations

Changaris et al., 1987[5]

*MAP measured at heart level

All patients with CPP < 60 mmHg on the second post-injury day died. More patients had a good outcome when CPP > 80 mmHg.

III

C

McGraw, 1989[6]

NA

The likelihood of good outcome was higher, and mortality lower when CPP > 80 mmHg.

III

C

Rosner and Daughton, 1990[7]

Supine position. Systemic ABP, transducer at same level as ICP

CPP actively kept >70 mmHg gave the same morbidity rates as previous methods.

III

C

Cruz, 1998[8]

"ICP and MAP levelled in relation to the head tilt"

Monitoring cerebral extraction of oxygen in conjunction with CPP gave better outcome than when CPP is managed alone.

III

C

Robertson et al., 1999[2]

MAP measures at the same level as ICP

CPP > 70 mmHg increased the risk of ARDS.

II

B

Juul et al., 2000[9]

*Arterial line, head level

CPP > 60 mmHg had no influence on outcome.

III

C

Contant et al., 2001[1]

NA

Increased risk of ARDS when CPP > 70 mmHg.

III

C

Andrews et al., 2002[3]

NA

Low CPP and hypotension were predictors of death and poor outcome.

III

C

Clifton et al., 2002[10]

NA

Poor outcome was associated with a CPP < 60 mmHg. No benefit by maintaining CPP > 70 mmHg.

III

C

Steiner et al., 2002[11]

NA

Optimal CPP for each patient was calculated. Patients whose CPP varied above or below had a worse outcome.

III

C

Howells et al., 2005[12]

*MAP measured in mid-axillary line

Patients with intact auto-regulation had better outcomes with CPP > 70 mmHg. Patients with defect auto-regulation had better outcome with ICP targeted care.

III

C