| Literature DB >> 26021740 |
H A van Elteren1, C Ince2, D Tibboel3, I K M Reiss4, R C J de Jonge4.
Abstract
Incident dark field imaging (IDF) is a new generation handheld microscope for bedside visualization and quantification of microcirculatory alterations. IDF is the technical successor of sidestream dark field imaging (SDF), currently the most used device for microcirculatory measurements. In (pre)term neonates the reduced thickness of the skin allows non-invasive transcutaneous measurements. The goal of this study was to compare the existing device (SDF) and its technical successor (IDF) in preterm neonates. We hypothesized that IDF imaging produces higher quality images resulting in a higher vessel density. After written informed consent was given by the parents, skin microcirculation was consecutively measured on the inner upper arm with de SDF and IDF device. Images were exported and analyzed offline using existing software (AVA 3.0). Vessel density and perfusion were calculated using the total vessel density (TVD) proportion of perfused vessels (PPV) and perfused vessel density. The microcirculation images quality score was used to evaluate the quality of the video images. In a heterogeneous group of twenty preterm neonates (median GA 27.6 weeks, range 24-33.4) IDF imaging visualized 19.9% more vessels resulting in a significantly higher vessel density (TVD 16.9 vs. 14.1/mm, p value < 0.001). The perfusion of vessels could be determined more accurately in the IDF images, resulting in a significant lower PPV (88.7 vs. 93.9%, p value 0.002). The IDF video images scored optimal in a higher percentage compared to the SDF video images. IDF imaging of the cutaneous microcirculation in preterm neonates resulted in a higher vessel density and lower perfusion compared to the existing SDF device.Entities:
Keywords: Incident dark field; Microcirculation; Preterm neonates; Sidestream dark field
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26021740 PMCID: PMC4565887 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9708-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Monit Comput ISSN: 1387-1307 Impact factor: 2.502
Fig. 1The conceptual differences between SDF and IDF imaging
Technical overview of the SDF and IDF devices
| SDF | IDF | |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensions | ||
| Length (mm) | 206 | 190 |
| Diameter (mm) | 64 | 28 |
| Weight (g) | 347 | 110 |
| Sensor | ||
| Pixel size (µm) | 6.25 × 6.25 | 1.4 × 1.4 |
| Number of megapixel | 0.43 | 14.6 |
| Pulse time (ms) | 16 | 2 |
| Optics | ||
| Resolution (lines per mm) | 220 | 320 |
| Magnification | 5 | 4 |
| Field of view (mm2) | 0.84 | 1.79 |
| Focusrange (µm) | 0–400 | 0–400 |
Fig. 2Frames of SDF (left) and IDF (right) microcirculatory videos
Demographic data of the population (n = 20)
| Male Gender (%) | 50 |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 27.6 (24–33.4) |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 27.6 (24–33.4) |
| Birth weight in grams | 1117 (470–2650) |
| Apgar score at 1 min | 6 (1–9) |
| Apgar score at 5 min | 8 (3–10) |
| Caesarean Section (%) | 45 |
| Antenatal corticosteroids (%) | 75 |
Data are presented as median (range) or percentage
Mean microcirculatory parameters total vessel density (TVD), perfused vessel density (PVD), proportion of perfused vessels (PPV), microvascular flow index (MFI) and heterogeneity index (HI) for small and non-small vessels measured by IDF and SDF
| IDF (SD) | SDF (SD) | Change (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVD small (n/mm) | 14.8 (2.1) | 12.5 (1.8) | +18.4 | .001 |
| TVD non-small (n/mm) | 2.1 (1.1) | 1.6 (1.1) | +31.3 | .070 |
| TVD total (n/mm) | 16.9 (2.0) | 14.1 (1.3) | +19.9 | .000 |
| PPV small (%) | 88.0 (9.4) | 93.6 (7.6) | −5.6 | .003 |
| PPV non-small (%) | 95.1 (8.4) | 98.9 (2.2) | −3.8 | .023 |
| PPV total (%) | 88.7 (9.1) | 93.9 (7.4) | −5.2 | .002 |
| PVD small (n/mm) | 13.0 (2.1) | 11.6 (1.9) | +12.1 | .033 |
| PVD non-small (n/mm) | 2.0 (1.1) | 1.6 (1.1) | +25.0 | .103 |
| PVD total (n/mm) | 15.0 (2.2) | 13.2 (1.7) | +13.6 | .001 |
| MFI small (au) | 2.78 (0.3) | 2.75 (0.3) | +1.1 | .621 |
| MFI non-small (au) | 3.00 (–) | 3.00 (–) | – | – |
| HI small (au) | 0.22 (0.19) | 0.24 (0.18) | −8.3 | .650 |
| HI non-small (au) | 0.00 (–) | 0.00 (–) | – | – |
au = arbitrary units
* Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired continuous data
Fig. 3Bland-Altman for TVD, PPV and PVD comparing SDF with IDF
The microcirculation image quality score for IDF (n = 60) and SDF (n = 60) video images
| Device | Score 0 | Score 1 | Score 10 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illumination | IDF | 56 | 4 | 0 | .032 |
| SDF | 48 | 12 | 0 | ||
| Duration | IDF | 5 | 5 | 50 | .238 |
| SDF | 6 | 11 | 43 | ||
| Focus | IDF | 52 | 8 | 0 | <.001 |
| SDF | 20 | 37 | 3 | ||
| Content | IDF | 44 | 16 | 0 | .838 |
| SDF | 43 | 17 | 0 | ||
| Stability | IDF | 59 | 3 | 0 | .648 |
| SDF | 58 | 2 | 0 | ||
| Pressure | IDF | 59 | 1 | 0 | <.001 |
| SDF | 44 | 16 | 0 |
* Chi squared test for categorical data