Cargando…
Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study
BACKGROUND: Real-time automated analysis of videos of the microvasculature is an essential step in the development of research protocols and clinical algorithms that incorporate point-of-care microvascular analysis. In response to the call for validation studies of available automated analysis softw...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33796954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00380-0 |
_version_ | 1783673981375610880 |
---|---|
author | Guay, Christian S. Khebir, Mariam Shiva Shahiri, T. Szilagyi, Ariana Cole, Erin Elizabeth Simoneau, Gabrielle Badawy, Mohamed |
author_facet | Guay, Christian S. Khebir, Mariam Shiva Shahiri, T. Szilagyi, Ariana Cole, Erin Elizabeth Simoneau, Gabrielle Badawy, Mohamed |
author_sort | Guay, Christian S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Real-time automated analysis of videos of the microvasculature is an essential step in the development of research protocols and clinical algorithms that incorporate point-of-care microvascular analysis. In response to the call for validation studies of available automated analysis software by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and building on a previous validation study in sheep, we report the first human validation study of AVA 4. METHODS: Two retrospective perioperative datasets of human microcirculation videos (P1 and P2) and one prospective healthy volunteer dataset (V1) were used in this validation study. Video quality was assessed using the modified Microcirculation Image Quality Selection (MIQS) score. Videos were initially analyzed with (1) AVA software 3.2 by two experienced investigators using the gold standard semi-automated method, followed by an analysis with (2) AVA automated software 4.1. Microvascular variables measured were perfused vessel density (PVD), total vessel density (TVD), and proportion of perfused vessels (PPV). Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure agreement between the two methods. Each method’s ability to discriminate between microcirculatory states before and after induction of general anesthesia was assessed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Fifty-two videos from P1, 128 videos from P2 and 26 videos from V1 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Correlational analysis and Bland–Altman analysis revealed poor agreement and no correlation between AVA 4.1 and AVA 3.2. Following the induction of general anesthesia, TVD and PVD measured using AVA 3.2 increased significantly for P1 (p < 0.05) and P2 (p < 0.05). However, these changes could not be replicated with the data generated by AVA 4.1. CONCLUSIONS: AVA 4.1 is not a suitable tool for research or clinical purposes at this time. Future validation studies of automated microvascular flow analysis software should aim to measure the new software’s agreement with the gold standard, its ability to discriminate between clinical states and the quality thresholds at which its performance becomes unacceptable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-021-00380-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8017044 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80170442021-04-16 Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study Guay, Christian S. Khebir, Mariam Shiva Shahiri, T. Szilagyi, Ariana Cole, Erin Elizabeth Simoneau, Gabrielle Badawy, Mohamed Intensive Care Med Exp Research Articles BACKGROUND: Real-time automated analysis of videos of the microvasculature is an essential step in the development of research protocols and clinical algorithms that incorporate point-of-care microvascular analysis. In response to the call for validation studies of available automated analysis software by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and building on a previous validation study in sheep, we report the first human validation study of AVA 4. METHODS: Two retrospective perioperative datasets of human microcirculation videos (P1 and P2) and one prospective healthy volunteer dataset (V1) were used in this validation study. Video quality was assessed using the modified Microcirculation Image Quality Selection (MIQS) score. Videos were initially analyzed with (1) AVA software 3.2 by two experienced investigators using the gold standard semi-automated method, followed by an analysis with (2) AVA automated software 4.1. Microvascular variables measured were perfused vessel density (PVD), total vessel density (TVD), and proportion of perfused vessels (PPV). Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure agreement between the two methods. Each method’s ability to discriminate between microcirculatory states before and after induction of general anesthesia was assessed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Fifty-two videos from P1, 128 videos from P2 and 26 videos from V1 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Correlational analysis and Bland–Altman analysis revealed poor agreement and no correlation between AVA 4.1 and AVA 3.2. Following the induction of general anesthesia, TVD and PVD measured using AVA 3.2 increased significantly for P1 (p < 0.05) and P2 (p < 0.05). However, these changes could not be replicated with the data generated by AVA 4.1. CONCLUSIONS: AVA 4.1 is not a suitable tool for research or clinical purposes at this time. Future validation studies of automated microvascular flow analysis software should aim to measure the new software’s agreement with the gold standard, its ability to discriminate between clinical states and the quality thresholds at which its performance becomes unacceptable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40635-021-00380-0. Springer International Publishing 2021-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8017044/ /pubmed/33796954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00380-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Guay, Christian S. Khebir, Mariam Shiva Shahiri, T. Szilagyi, Ariana Cole, Erin Elizabeth Simoneau, Gabrielle Badawy, Mohamed Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title | Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title_full | Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title_short | Evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software AVA 4: a validation study |
title_sort | evaluation of automated microvascular flow analysis software ava 4: a validation study |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33796954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00380-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guaychristians evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT khebirmariam evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT shivashahirit evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT szilagyiariana evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT coleerinelizabeth evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT simoneaugabrielle evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy AT badawymohamed evaluationofautomatedmicrovascularflowanalysissoftwareava4avalidationstudy |