Table 3 Overview of studies comparing cerebrovascular reactivity with CBF or OEF
Author | Method 1 | Method 2 | Sample (n) | ICA occlusion | Symptoms | Agreement between methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fujimoto et al. 2002 [29] | IMP-SPECT + ACZ | 15O-PET | 53 | 18 | 47 | Haemodynamic compromise in 75% by method 1, 32% by method 2 (increased OEF, stage 2), and 64% by method 2 (stage 1). |
Correlation CVR (asymmetry index) with CBF/CBV r = 0.31 (p < 0.05) | ||||||
Correlation CVR with OEF r = −0.64 (p < 0.0001) | ||||||
Herold et al. 1988 [25] | Xenon-SPECT + CO2 | 15O-PET | 21 | 19 | 7 | Haemodynamic compromise in 29% by method 1 and 19% by method 2 (increased OEF) |
Correlation CVR with CBF/CBV r = 0.575 (p < 0.01) | ||||||
Correlation CVR with oxygen extraction ratio r = −0.573 (p < 0.01) | ||||||
Imaizumi et al. 2002 [28] | IMP-SPECT + ACZ | 15O-PET | 27 | 9 | 22 | No data on the number of patients with haemodynamic compromise |
Correlation CVR with CBV r = −0.31 (p < 0.01) | ||||||
Correlation CVR with OEF r = −0.55 (p < 0.0001) | ||||||
Nariai et al. 1995 [26] | Xenon CT + ACZ | 15O-PET | 11 | 4 | 10 | No data on number of patients with haemodynamic compromise |
Correlation CVR with CBV r = −0.50 (p = 0.02) | ||||||
Correlation CVR with OEF r = −0.65 (p = 0.001) | ||||||
Nemoto et al. 2004 [27] | Xenon CT + ACZ | 15O-PET | 12 | 12 | 12 | Haemodynamic compromise in 50% by method 1 and 17% by method 2 (increased OEF) |
Correlation CVR with OEF r = −0.57 (p = 0.001) | ||||||
Sugimori et al. 1995 [24] | TCD + CO2 | 15O-PET | 22 | 2 | 7 | Haemodynamic compromise in 52% by method 1 and 9% by method 2 (increased OEF) |
Correlation CVR with CBF r = 0.47 (p < 0.05) | ||||||
Correlation CVR with OEF r = 0.20 (ns) |