Cargando…

An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method

The ability to distinguish harmful solid cerebral emboli from gas bubbles intra-operatively has potential to direct interventions to reduce the risk of brain injury. In this in vitro study, two embolus discrimination techniques, dual-frequency (DF) and frequency modulation (FM) methods, are simultan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Banahan, Caroline, Rogerson, Zach, Rousseau, Clément, Ramnarine, Kumar V., Evans, David H., Chung, Emma M.L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Pergamon Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.06.003
_version_ 1782339360980467712
author Banahan, Caroline
Rogerson, Zach
Rousseau, Clément
Ramnarine, Kumar V.
Evans, David H.
Chung, Emma M.L.
author_facet Banahan, Caroline
Rogerson, Zach
Rousseau, Clément
Ramnarine, Kumar V.
Evans, David H.
Chung, Emma M.L.
author_sort Banahan, Caroline
collection PubMed
description The ability to distinguish harmful solid cerebral emboli from gas bubbles intra-operatively has potential to direct interventions to reduce the risk of brain injury. In this in vitro study, two embolus discrimination techniques, dual-frequency (DF) and frequency modulation (FM) methods, are simultaneously compared to assess discrimination of potentially harmful large pieces of carotid plaque debris (0.5–1.55 mm) and thrombus-mimicking material (0.5–2 mm) from gas bubbles (0.01–2.5 mm). Detection of plaque and thrombus-mimic using the DF technique yielded disappointing results, with four out of five particles being misclassified (sensitivity: 18%; specificity: 89%). Although the FM method offered improved sensitivity, a higher number of false positives were observed (sensitivity: 72%; specificity: 50%). Optimum differentiation was achieved using the difference between peak embolus/blood ratio and mean embolus/blood ratio (sensitivity: 77%; specificity: 81%). We conclude that existing DF and FM techniques are unable to confidently distinguish large solid emboli from small gas bubbles (<50 μm).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4195753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Pergamon Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41957532014-11-01 An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method Banahan, Caroline Rogerson, Zach Rousseau, Clément Ramnarine, Kumar V. Evans, David H. Chung, Emma M.L. Ultrasound Med Biol Original Contribution The ability to distinguish harmful solid cerebral emboli from gas bubbles intra-operatively has potential to direct interventions to reduce the risk of brain injury. In this in vitro study, two embolus discrimination techniques, dual-frequency (DF) and frequency modulation (FM) methods, are simultaneously compared to assess discrimination of potentially harmful large pieces of carotid plaque debris (0.5–1.55 mm) and thrombus-mimicking material (0.5–2 mm) from gas bubbles (0.01–2.5 mm). Detection of plaque and thrombus-mimic using the DF technique yielded disappointing results, with four out of five particles being misclassified (sensitivity: 18%; specificity: 89%). Although the FM method offered improved sensitivity, a higher number of false positives were observed (sensitivity: 72%; specificity: 50%). Optimum differentiation was achieved using the difference between peak embolus/blood ratio and mean embolus/blood ratio (sensitivity: 77%; specificity: 81%). We conclude that existing DF and FM techniques are unable to confidently distinguish large solid emboli from small gas bubbles (<50 μm). Pergamon Press 2014-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4195753/ /pubmed/25218455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.06.003 Text en © 2014 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine &amp; Biology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Contribution
Banahan, Caroline
Rogerson, Zach
Rousseau, Clément
Ramnarine, Kumar V.
Evans, David H.
Chung, Emma M.L.
An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title_full An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title_fullStr An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title_full_unstemmed An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title_short An In Vitro Comparison of Embolus Differentiation Techniques for Clinically Significant Macroemboli: Dual-Frequency Technique versus Frequency Modulation Method
title_sort in vitro comparison of embolus differentiation techniques for clinically significant macroemboli: dual-frequency technique versus frequency modulation method
topic Original Contribution
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.06.003
work_keys_str_mv AT banahancaroline aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT rogersonzach aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT rousseauclement aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT ramnarinekumarv aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT evansdavidh aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT chungemmaml aninvitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT banahancaroline invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT rogersonzach invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT rousseauclement invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT ramnarinekumarv invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT evansdavidh invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod
AT chungemmaml invitrocomparisonofembolusdifferentiationtechniquesforclinicallysignificantmacroembolidualfrequencytechniqueversusfrequencymodulationmethod