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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neurological research (New York) 2000-10, Vol.22 (7), p.738-740
Main Authors: Georgiadis, D., Uhlmann, F., Astler, M., Cencetti, S., Zierz, S.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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