| Literature DB >> 26861691 |
Michael J Massey1, Nathan I Shapiro2,3.
Abstract
Various noninvasive microscopic camera technologies have been used to visualize the sublingual microcirculation in patients. We describe a comprehensive approach to bedside in vivo sublingual microcirculation video image capture and analysis techniques in the human clinical setting. We present a user perspective and guide suitable for clinical researchers and developers interested in the capture and analysis of sublingual microcirculatory flow videos. We review basic differences in the cameras, optics, light sources, operation, and digital image capture. We describe common techniques for image acquisition and discuss aspects of video data management, including data transfer, metadata, and database design and utilization to facilitate the image analysis pipeline. We outline image analysis techniques and reporting including video preprocessing and image quality evaluation. Finally, we propose a framework for future directions in the field of microcirculatory flow videomicroscopy acquisition and analysis. Although automated scoring systems have not been sufficiently robust for widespread clinical or research use to date, we discuss promising innovations that are driving new development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26861691 PMCID: PMC4748457 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1213-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Comparison between SDF/IDF technical specifications
| Microscan (Microvision Medical B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands) | Capiscope HVCS (KK Technology, Honiton, UK) | Capiscope HVCS-HRa (KK Technology) | Cytocam (Braedius Medical B.V., Huizen, the Netherlands) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | SDF | SDF | SDF | IDF | |
| Image size (pixels) | 720 × 480 (NTSC) | 720 × 576 (PAL) | 752 × 480 | 1280 × 1024 | 2208 × 1648 |
| Resolution (μm/pixel) | 1.45 (horizontal), 1.58 (vertical)b | 0.92 | 0.81 | 0.66c | |
| Field of view (μm) | 1044 × 758 (NTSC) | 692 × 442 | 1037 × 829 | 1457 × 1061 | |
| Frame rate (fps) | 30 (NTSC) | 25 (PAL) | Up to 87d | 25d | 25 |
| Illumination time (ms) | 10 | 0.5–2d | 0.5–2d | 2 | |
aCapiscope HVCS-HR uses the same camera, illumination, and optics as the Capiscope HVCS with a modified sensor and electronics
bMeasured using an NTSC version and Canopus ADVC110 video digitizer
cMeasured using a 150 line-pairs per inch Ronchi ruling (Edmund Optics, Barrington, NJ, USA)
dPrivate communication with manufacturer
IDF incident dark field, NTSC national television system committee, PAL phase altering line, SDF sidestream dark field
Fig. 1SDF video analysis workflow chart. Raw video is captured by multiple study sites into cloud storage folders. A central processing facility syncs with the cloud storage and moves files to an onsite server for further processing. Videos are preprocessed to remove noise, resize, enhance contrast, and correct background illumination inhomogeneity. Videos are stabilized and clipped to specified duration and dimensions for analysis. Clips that cannot be stabilized over a minimum duration are discarded. Files may be organized by study folders. Clipped and stabilized videos are reviewed for image quality and assigned an image quality score. A quality sorting algorithm can be applied to select files for randomization and further analysis. Db database
Fig. 2An IQS form. File name includes metadata showing, for example, study site, patient ID, study name, date, timestamp, calibration, and preprocessing. Clicking the “Play” button opens the video file in a video player. The “Randomized” checkbox is not editable and indicates that the video has been assigned a random ID and selected for analysis. A quality score (0 = good, 1 = acceptable, or 10 = unacceptable) is assigned for each image quality category. Fields are provided to record specific time codes and comments
Microcirculation parameters
| Microcirculation parameter | Information provided | Symbol/equation | Units | Measurement | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microvascular flow index | Perfusion quality (for small, medium, and large vesselsa) | MFI | Arbitrary | The image is divided into four quadrants; a number is assigned for each quadrant according to the predominant type of flow (0 = no flow; 1 = intermittent; 2 = sluggish; 3 = continuous). The MFI results from the averaged values | [ |
| De Backer score | Vessel density |
| 1/mm | The image is divided by three vertical and three horizontal lines; the De Backer score is calculated as the number of vessels crossing the lines divided by the total length of the lines | [ |
| Total vessel density | Vessel density (for small, medium, and large vesselsa) | TVD = | mm/mm2 | Total length of vessels is divided by the total surface of the analyzed area | [ |
| Proportion of perfused vessels (by length) | Perfusion quality (for small, medium, and large vesselsa) | PPV1 = | Percent | 100 × number of perfused vessels is divided by the total number of vessels | [ |
| Proportion of perfused vessels | PPV = | Percent | 100 × length of perfused vessels divided by total length of vessels | [ | |
| Flow heterogeneity index | Perfusion heterogeneity |
| Unitless | The difference between the highest MFI and the lowest MFI is divided by the mean MFI. MFI is intended as the averaged MFI of each site | [ |
| Perfused vessel density | PVD = PPV * VDDe Backer | 1/mm | Vessel density × proportion of perfused vessels | [ | |
| Perfused vessel density | Functional vessel density (for small, medium, and large vesselsa) |
| mm/mm2 | Total length of perfused vessels (sluggish or continuous) is divided by the total surface of the analyzed area (%) | [ |
Three or five sites are evaluated. Parameters are usually stratified by vessel size
aVessel diameter classification: <20 μm = small, 20–50 μm = medium, 50–100 μm = large
Modified from original by Donati et al. [13]