| |
BWC vs.
|
BWC vs.
|
BWC vs.
|
BWC vs.
|
|---|
|
ICP
|
CPP
|
ipsilateral LCBF
|
contralateral LCBF
|
|---|
|
Group 1
|
0.34 (0.40)
|
−0.07 (0.85)
|
0.71 (0.06)
|
−0.09 (0.83)
|
|
(control)
|
|
Group 2
|
−0.67 (0.06)
|
0.63 (0.09)
|
−0.30 (0.47)
|
−0.44 (0.28)
|
|
(15 minutes)
|
|
Group 3
|
−0.58 (0.12)
|
0.30 (0.46)
|
0.03 (0.95)
|
0.42 (0.31)
|
|
(30 minutes)
|
|
Group 4
|
0.07 (0.87)
|
0.13 (0.75)
|
−0.49 (0.22)
|
−0.52 (0.18)
|
|
(60 minutes)
|
|
Group 5
|
−0.03 (0.93)
|
−0.48 (0.22)
|
−0.75 (0.03)
|
−0.72 (0.04)
|
|
(180 minutes)
|
|
Group 6(360 minutes)
|
0.43 (0.27)
|
−0.01 (0.98)
|
−0.82 (0.01)
|
−0.81 (0.01)
|
- The numbers on the left of each box resemble the correlation coefficient, the numbers on the left (in brackets) the p-value.There was no correlation of the BWC with the course of ICP- and CPP-values in any group. The BWC showed a significant inverse correlation to the AUC of both the ipsi- and contralateral LCBF-course in animals sacrificed after 180 and 360 minutes.
