Evidence Hub

On the utility of near-infrared spectroscopy-derived measures for assessing cerebrovascular autoregulation: results from an observational cohort study

S. Bögli, C. Smith, Ihsane Olakorede, M. Placek, Gemma M. Bale, Peter Smielewski

Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025

Abstract

Cerebrovascular autoregulation maintains stable cerebral blood flow by counteracting slow changes in cerebral perfusion pressure (termed “slow waves”). Conventional assessment involves invasive techniques using intracranial pressure (ICP) or technically challenging cerebral blood flow velocity (FV) measurements. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) has emerged as a non-invasive alternative; however, its ability to accurately capture the slow-wave oscillations fundamental to cerebrovascular autoregulation remains uncertain. 412 h of simultaneous ICP, FV, NIRS, and arterial blood pressure (ABP) monitoring from 35 traumatic brain injury patients were explored. Coherence, gain, and Granger causality analyses were employed to assess whether NIRS adequately reflects slow waves in ABP, FV, or ICP to investigate whether NIRS is a suitable alternative for assessing the state of cerebrovascular autoregulation In this single-centre observational cohort study, 89 recordings from 35 moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients (totalling 412 h of artefact-free data) were analysed. Simultaneous high-resolution recordings of NIRS, ICP, FV, and arterial blood pressure (ABP) were acquired. Coherence and gain were computed across defined frequency bands (0.001–0.5 Hz), with a focus on the range most relevant to cerebrovascular autoregulation (0.005–0.05 Hz). Granger causality was used to explore directional relationships between physiological inputs (ABP, FV, ICP) and NIRS outputs…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free