Loading…
Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques
An alternative technique for identification of Doppler microemboli signals (MBS), based on intensity measurements in the vessel and in an arbitrary sample volume was recently reported. We evaluated the applicability of this approach as stand alone system, and compared It to the standard bigate metho...
Saved in:
Published in: | Neurological research (New York) 2000-10, Vol.22 (7), p.738-740 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-657abbcf299da58066d690a9bc3e5eaa6a06bb348b124a454264825b8724fac73 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 740 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 738 |
container_title | Neurological research (New York) |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Georgiadis, D. Uhlmann, F. Astler, M. Cencetti, S. Zierz, S. |
description | An alternative technique for identification of Doppler microemboli signals (MBS), based on intensity measurements in the vessel and in an arbitrary sample volume was recently reported. We evaluated the applicability of this approach as stand alone system, and compared It to the standard bigate method (TCD 8, version 8T). Bilateral TCD monitoring was performed in 11 patients with prosthetic heart valves and 15 patients during elective cardiac surgery, using three sample volumes (29 mm, 50 mm and 55 mm). All data was saved on digital audio tapes and evaluated by two experienced observers. Only signals unanimously identified as MES or artifacts by both observers were evaluated. A total of 6189 MES and 11,241 artifacts were further analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of the bigate approach and the technique utilising the arbitrary sample volume were 90.7%, 91.3% and 88%, 91.9% respectively. Simultaneous monitoring over three sample volumes and combination of the two detection algorithms could potentially provide an adequate stand-alone system for MES detection. [Neurol Res 2000; 22: 738-740] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/01616412.2000.11740749 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71275520</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>63839615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-657abbcf299da58066d690a9bc3e5eaa6a06bb348b124a454264825b8724fac73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMoun78BSkevHVN0jRtvC3rJwhe1GuYpKlG2qYmKeK_N2VXBC-eZhiemZd5EDoleElwjS8w4YQzQpcU4zQiFcMVEztokboiJwWtd9FihvKZOkCHIbxjTAStxT46IAQLImq6QC-rKboeomky25gh2tZqiNYNmWuzKzeOnfFZb7V3pleuszoL9nWALlxma9eP4G3YsPHTZdHot8F-TCYco702QeZkW4_Q88310_ouf3i8vV-vHnJdCBpzXlaglG6pEA2UNea84QKDULowpQHggLlSBasVoQxYyShnNS1VXVHWgq6KI3S-uTt6N-dG2dugTdfBYNwUZEVoVZYUJ_DsD_juJj8_IinBKZQKkiC-gdK7IXjTytHbHvyXJFjO2uWPdjlrlz_a0-Lp9vqketP8rm09J2C1AezQOt_Dp_NdIyN8dc63HgZtgyz-CfkGZDWRow</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>210690291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques</title><source>Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>Georgiadis, D. ; Uhlmann, F. ; Astler, M. ; Cencetti, S. ; Zierz, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Georgiadis, D. ; Uhlmann, F. ; Astler, M. ; Cencetti, S. ; Zierz, S.</creatorcontrib><description>An alternative technique for identification of Doppler microemboli signals (MBS), based on intensity measurements in the vessel and in an arbitrary sample volume was recently reported. We evaluated the applicability of this approach as stand alone system, and compared It to the standard bigate method (TCD 8, version 8T). Bilateral TCD monitoring was performed in 11 patients with prosthetic heart valves and 15 patients during elective cardiac surgery, using three sample volumes (29 mm, 50 mm and 55 mm). All data was saved on digital audio tapes and evaluated by two experienced observers. Only signals unanimously identified as MES or artifacts by both observers were evaluated. A total of 6189 MES and 11,241 artifacts were further analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of the bigate approach and the technique utilising the arbitrary sample volume were 90.7%, 91.3% and 88%, 91.9% respectively. Simultaneous monitoring over three sample volumes and combination of the two detection algorithms could potentially provide an adequate stand-alone system for MES detection. [Neurol Res 2000; 22: 738-740]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-6412</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-1328</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/01616412.2000.11740749</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11091982</identifier><identifier>CODEN: NEORAM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Aged ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures ; Emboli ; Female ; Humans ; Intracranial Embolism - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Ultrasonics ; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial - methods</subject><ispartof>Neurological research (New York), 2000-10, Vol.22 (7), p.738-740</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2000 Crane, Russak & Company, Inc. 2000</rights><rights>Copyright Forefront Publishing Group Oct 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-657abbcf299da58066d690a9bc3e5eaa6a06bb348b124a454264825b8724fac73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11091982$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Georgiadis, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uhlmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astler, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cencetti, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zierz, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques</title><title>Neurological research (New York)</title><addtitle>Neurol Res</addtitle><description>An alternative technique for identification of Doppler microemboli signals (MBS), based on intensity measurements in the vessel and in an arbitrary sample volume was recently reported. We evaluated the applicability of this approach as stand alone system, and compared It to the standard bigate method (TCD 8, version 8T). Bilateral TCD monitoring was performed in 11 patients with prosthetic heart valves and 15 patients during elective cardiac surgery, using three sample volumes (29 mm, 50 mm and 55 mm). All data was saved on digital audio tapes and evaluated by two experienced observers. Only signals unanimously identified as MES or artifacts by both observers were evaluated. A total of 6189 MES and 11,241 artifacts were further analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of the bigate approach and the technique utilising the arbitrary sample volume were 90.7%, 91.3% and 88%, 91.9% respectively. Simultaneous monitoring over three sample volumes and combination of the two detection algorithms could potentially provide an adequate stand-alone system for MES detection. [Neurol Res 2000; 22: 738-740]</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Emboli</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intracranial Embolism - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Ultrasonics</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial - methods</subject><issn>0161-6412</issn><issn>1743-1328</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMoun78BSkevHVN0jRtvC3rJwhe1GuYpKlG2qYmKeK_N2VXBC-eZhiemZd5EDoleElwjS8w4YQzQpcU4zQiFcMVEztokboiJwWtd9FihvKZOkCHIbxjTAStxT46IAQLImq6QC-rKboeomky25gh2tZqiNYNmWuzKzeOnfFZb7V3pleuszoL9nWALlxma9eP4G3YsPHTZdHot8F-TCYco702QeZkW4_Q88310_ouf3i8vV-vHnJdCBpzXlaglG6pEA2UNea84QKDULowpQHggLlSBasVoQxYyShnNS1VXVHWgq6KI3S-uTt6N-dG2dugTdfBYNwUZEVoVZYUJ_DsD_juJj8_IinBKZQKkiC-gdK7IXjTytHbHvyXJFjO2uWPdjlrlz_a0-Lp9vqketP8rm09J2C1AezQOt_Dp_NdIyN8dc63HgZtgyz-CfkGZDWRow</recordid><startdate>20001001</startdate><enddate>20001001</enddate><creator>Georgiadis, D.</creator><creator>Uhlmann, F.</creator><creator>Astler, M.</creator><creator>Cencetti, S.</creator><creator>Zierz, S.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Maney Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20001001</creationdate><title>Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques</title><author>Georgiadis, D. ; Uhlmann, F. ; Astler, M. ; Cencetti, S. ; Zierz, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-657abbcf299da58066d690a9bc3e5eaa6a06bb348b124a454264825b8724fac73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Emboli</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intracranial Embolism - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Ultrasonics</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Georgiadis, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uhlmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astler, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cencetti, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zierz, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurological research (New York)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Georgiadis, D.</au><au>Uhlmann, F.</au><au>Astler, M.</au><au>Cencetti, S.</au><au>Zierz, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques</atitle><jtitle>Neurological research (New York)</jtitle><addtitle>Neurol Res</addtitle><date>2000-10-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>738</spage><epage>740</epage><pages>738-740</pages><issn>0161-6412</issn><eissn>1743-1328</eissn><coden>NEORAM</coden><abstract>An alternative technique for identification of Doppler microemboli signals (MBS), based on intensity measurements in the vessel and in an arbitrary sample volume was recently reported. We evaluated the applicability of this approach as stand alone system, and compared It to the standard bigate method (TCD 8, version 8T). Bilateral TCD monitoring was performed in 11 patients with prosthetic heart valves and 15 patients during elective cardiac surgery, using three sample volumes (29 mm, 50 mm and 55 mm). All data was saved on digital audio tapes and evaluated by two experienced observers. Only signals unanimously identified as MES or artifacts by both observers were evaluated. A total of 6189 MES and 11,241 artifacts were further analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of the bigate approach and the technique utilising the arbitrary sample volume were 90.7%, 91.3% and 88%, 91.9% respectively. Simultaneous monitoring over three sample volumes and combination of the two detection algorithms could potentially provide an adequate stand-alone system for MES detection. [Neurol Res 2000; 22: 738-740]</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><pmid>11091982</pmid><doi>10.1080/01616412.2000.11740749</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0161-6412 |
ispartof | Neurological research (New York), 2000-10, Vol.22 (7), p.738-740 |
issn | 0161-6412 1743-1328 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71275520 |
source | Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list) |
subjects | Aged Cardiac Surgical Procedures Emboli Female Humans Intracranial Embolism - diagnostic imaging Male Middle Aged Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods Reproducibility of Results Ultrasonics Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial - methods |
title | Automated identification of Doppler microembolic signals: Comparison of two techniques |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T12%3A06%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Automated%20identification%20of%20Doppler%20microembolic%20signals:%20Comparison%20of%20two%20techniques&rft.jtitle=Neurological%20research%20(New%20York)&rft.au=Georgiadis,%20D.&rft.date=2000-10-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=738&rft.epage=740&rft.pages=738-740&rft.issn=0161-6412&rft.eissn=1743-1328&rft.coden=NEORAM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/01616412.2000.11740749&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E63839615%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-657abbcf299da58066d690a9bc3e5eaa6a06bb348b124a454264825b8724fac73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=210690291&rft_id=info:pmid/11091982&rfr_iscdi=true |