Object There are several infusion methods available to estimate the outflow conductance (C_out) or outflow resistance (R_out = 1/C_out) of the CSF system. It has been stated that for unknown reasons, the bolus infusion method estimates a higher C_out than steady-state infusion methods. The aim of this study was to compare different infusion methods for estimation of C_out.

Methods The following 3 different infusion methods were used: the bolus infusion method (C_{out bol}); the constant flow infusion method, both static (C_{out stat}) and dynamic (C_{out dyn}) analyses; and the constant pressure infusion method (C_{out cpi}). Repeated investigations were performed on an experimental model with well-known characteristics, with and without physiological pressure variations (B-waves, breathing, and so on). All 3 methods were also performed in a randomized order during the same investigation in 20 patients with probable or possible idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus; 6 of these patients had a shunt and 14 did not.

Results Without the presence of physiological pressure variations, the concordance in the experimental model was good between all methods. When they were added, the repeatability was better for the steady-state methods and a significantly higher C_out was found with the bolus method in the region of clinically relevant C_out (p < 0.05). The visual fit for the bolus infusion was dependent on subjective assessment by the operator. This experimental finding was confirmed by the clinical results, where significant differences were found in the investigations in patients without shunts between C_out of the visual bolus method and C_{out stat}, C_{out dyn}, and C_{out cpi} (4.58, 4.18, and 6.12 μl/[second × kPa], respectively).

Conclusions This study emphasized the necessity for standardization of C_out measurements. An experienced operator could partly compensate for difficulties in correctly estimating the pressure parameters for the bolus infusion method, but for the general user this study suggests a steady-state method for estimating C_out.

Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) patients have a disturbance in the dynamics of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) system. The outflow conductance, C, of the CSF system has been suggested to be prognostic for positive outcome after treatment with a CSF shunt. All current methods for estimation of C have drawbacks; these include lack of information on the accuracy and relatively long investigation times. Thus, there is a need for improved methods. To accomplish this, the theoretical framework for a new adaptive observer (OBS) was developed which provides real-time estimation of C. The aim of this study was to evaluate the OBS method and to compare it with the constant pressure infusion (CPI) method. The OBS method was applied to data from infusion investigations performed with the CPI method. These consisted of repeated measurements on an experimental set-up and 30 patients with suspected INPH. There was no significant difference in C between the CPI and the OBS method for the experimental set-up. For the patients there was a significant difference, −0.84 ± 1.25 µl (s kPa)⁻¹, mean ± SD (paired sample t-test, p < 0.05). However, such a difference is within clinically acceptable limits. This encourages further development of this new real-time approach for estimation of the outflow conductance.

Hydrocephalus is related to a disturbed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) system. For diagnosis, lumbar infusion test are performed to estimate outflow conductance, C (out), and pressure volume index, PVI, of the CSF system. Infusion patterns and analysis methods used in current clinical practice are not optimized. Minimizing the investigation time with sufficient accuracy is of major clinical relevance. The aim of this study was to propose and experimentally evaluate a new method, the oscillating pressure infusion (OPI). The non-linear model of the CSF system was transformed into a linear time invariant system. Using an oscillating pressure pattern and linear system identification methods, C (out) and PVI with confidence intervals, were estimated in real-time. Forty-two OPI and constant pressure infusion (CPI) investigations were performed on an experimental CSF system, designed with PVI = 25.5 ml and variable C (out). The ARX model robustly estimated C (out) (mean C (out,OPI) - C (out,CPI) = 0.08 μl/(s kPa), n = 42, P = 0.68). The Box-Jenkins model proved most reliable for PVI (23.7 ± 2.0 ml, n = 42). The OPI method, with its oscillating pressure pattern and new parameter estimation methods, efficiently estimated C (out) and PVI as well as their confidence intervals in real-time. The results from this experimental study show potential for the OPI method and supports further evaluation in a clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: A lumbar infusion test is commonly used as a predictive test for patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus and for evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt function. Different infusion protocols can be used to estimate the outflow conductance (Cout) or its reciprocal the outflow resistance, (Rout) with or without using the baseline resting pressure, Pr. Both from a basic physiological research and a clinical perspective, it is important to understand the limitations of the model on which infusion tests are based. By estimating Cout using two different analyses, with or without Pr, the limitations could be explored. The aim of this study was to compare the Cout estimates, and investigate what effect Pr had on the results.

METHODS: Sixty-three patients that underwent a constant pressure infusion protocol as part of their preoperative evaluation for normal pressure hydrocephalus, were included (age 70.3+/-10.8 years (mean +/-SD). The analysis was performed without (Cexcl Pr) and with (Cincl Pr) Pr. The estimates were compared using Bland-Altman plots and paired sample t-tests (p<0.05 considered significant).

RESULTS: Mean Cout for the 63 patients was: Cexcl Pr = 7.0+/-4.0 (mean +/-SD) ul/(s kPa) and Cincl Pr = 9.1+/-4.3 ul/(s kPa) and Rout was 19.0+/-9.2 and 17.7+/-11.3 mmHg/ml/min, respectively. There was a positive correlation between methods (r=0.79, n=63, p<0.01). The difference, DeltaCout, -2.1+/-2.7 ul/(s kPa) between methods was significant (p<0.01) and DeltaRout was 1.2 +/- 8.8 mmHg/ml/min). The Bland-Altman plot visualized that the variation around the mean difference was similar all through the range of measured values and there was no correlation between DeltaCout and Cout.

CONCLUSIONS: The difference between Cout estimates, obtained from analyses with or without Pr, needs to be taken into consideration when comparing results from studies using different infusion test protocols. The study suggests variation in CSF formation rate, variation in venous pressure or a pressure dependent Cout as possible causes for the deviation from the CSF absorption model seen in some patients.