.
Why Spinal Cord Perfusion Pressure Is the New Frontier in Acute SCI Care
For almost two decades clinicians have focused on keeping mean arterial pressure (MAP) above 85 mmHg after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) to improve blood flow to the damaged cord. A recent systematic review highlighted that the evidence supporting this MAP‑only strategy is weak, leaving clinicians to wonder if a more physiologic target could yield better outcomes.
The Rise of Spinal Cord Perfusion Pressure (SCPP)
SCPP is calculated as MAP – intrathecal pressure (ITP). Early work from the CAMPER trial showed that higher SCPP correlated more strongly with neurological recovery than MAP alone, and that maintaining SCPP around 65 mmHg appeared optimal.
CASPER: Putting the Theory into Practice
The CASPER (Canadian‑American Spinal Cord Perfusion and Biomarker) trial tested whether actively targeting SCPP ≥65 mmHg—by combining MAP augmentation with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage—could improve recovery compared with the traditional MAP‑only approach used in the historical CAMPER cohort.
Study Design at a Glance
- 58 acute SCI participants received a lumbar intrathecal catheter within 48 hours of injury.
- CSF drainage was guided by ITP values (>15 mmHg) and waveform morphology.
- Outcomes were compared to 86 historical controls managed with MAP targets alone.
What the Numbers Reveal
- CSF was actually drained in only 32 % of hourly recordings. 68 % showed “zero” volume.
- The total volume drained across all participants averaged 495 cc (range 0–1998 cc), equivalent to 3.37 cc/hr.
- Mean MAP, ITP, and SCPP did not differ significantly between CASPER and CAMPER (effect sizes d = 0.19–0.28; p > 0.10).
- Participants in CASPER spent fewer observations on vasopressors (79 % vs. 96 %; d = 0.74; p = 0.004) but total dose could not be quantified.
- Neurological recovery—measured by AIS grade conversion or ≥7‑point motor score gain—was identical between groups.
Unexpected Findings on CSF Drainage
In a subset of six participants with high‑resolution monitoring, each milliliter of CSF removed lowered ITP by only 0.14 mmHg (β = ‑0.14; p = 0.003). The relationship between drainage volume and ITP change was far weaker than anticipated.
What Went Wrong? Lessons Learned from the Multi‑Center Trial
Protocol Adherence Was a Major Hurdle
Even with detailed flowcharts, training sessions, and regular meetings, bedside nurses often deviated from the drainage algorithm—sometimes opting to raise MAP instead of opening the drain, even when ITP exceeded the 15 mmHg threshold.
Subarachnoid Space (SAS) Occlusion Limits CSF Drainage
The ITP waveform proved a useful surrogate for SAS patency:
- Flat waveforms (20 % of CASPER recordings) indicated an occluded SAS and were associated with lower ITP values.
- Dampened or fully pulsatile waveforms (79 % of recordings) suggested a patent SAS and higher ITP.
When the SAS is blocked by swollen cord tissue, lumbar CSF pressure no longer reflects pressure at the injury site, making SCPP calculations unreliable.
Insufficient Surgical Decompression
Post‑operative MRI examples showed that patients with extensive laminectomies retained a patent SAS, allowing more effective drainage, whereas those with limited decompression had persistent SAS blockage and minimal CSF removal.
Future Directions: Turning Challenges into Opportunities
Refining the Drainage Protocol
Future trials may adopt a lower ITP target (e.g., ≤10 mmHg) to create a larger pressure gradient and encourage higher drainage volumes. Aggressive, volume‑controlled drainage could better offset CSF production rates.
Integrating Advanced Imaging and Ultrasound
Real‑time intra‑operative ultrasound or early post‑operative MRI could confirm SAS patency, guiding surgeons to perform multi‑level posterior decompressions that maintain the subarachnoid space open.
Biomarker‑Driven Patient Selection
Combining CSF or blood biomarkers with imaging may identify a subpopulation most likely to benefit from SCPP‑targeted therapy, reducing variability and enhancing statistical power.
Learning From Other Disciplines
CSF drainage is a proven neuroprotective tool in thoraco‑abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) surgery, where the SAS is typically patent. Adapting the higher drainage rates reported in TAAA (far exceeding the 3 cc/hr observed in CASPER) could inform SCI protocols.
Key Takeaways for Clinicians
- SCPP, not MAP alone, may better reflect spinal cord perfusion.
- Effective CSF drainage hinges on a patent SAS; surgical decompression is critical.
- Current evidence shows limited neurologic benefit from modest CSF drainage in acute SCI.
- Future research should focus on robust drainage targets, imaging confirmation of SAS patency, and biomarker‑guided enrollment.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the difference between MAP and SCPP?
- MAP is the overall arterial pressure; SCPP subtracts the intrathecal (CSF) pressure, giving a direct estimate of pressure driving blood through the spinal cord tissue.
- Does draining CSF improve outcomes after spinal cord injury?
- In the CASPER trial, limited CSF drainage did not change MAP, ITP, SCPP, or neurological recovery compared with MAP‑only management.
- How can clinicians tell if the subarachnoid space is blocked?
- Bedside nurses classified the ITP waveform as flat (occluded) or pulsatile (patent). Flat waveforms were linked to lower ITP and reduced drainage success.
- Are vasopressors still needed if we manage SCPP?
- CASPER participants received vasopressors on fewer observations, but total dosage was not measured, so a definitive answer is pending.
What’s Next?
If you’re a spine surgeon, neuro‑intensivist, or researcher, consider joining collaborative efforts to develop standardized SCPP protocols and share your experiences. The field is moving toward precision hemodynamics—your insights could shape the next breakthrough.
Join the Conversation
What are your thoughts on using SCPP versus MAP in acute SCI? Share your experiences in the comments below, explore our Spinal Cord Research hub, and subscribe to stay updated on the latest advances.
