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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 & 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 |