| Literature DB >> 27864774 |
Philip-Helge Arnemann1, Michael Hessler2, Tim Kampmeier2, Andrea Morelli3, Hugo Karel Van Aken2, Martin Westphal2, Sebastian Rehberg4, Christian Ertmer2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life-threatening diseases of critically ill patients are known to derange microcirculation. Automatic analysis of microcirculation would provide a bedside diagnostic tool for microcirculatory disorders and allow immediate therapeutic decisions based upon microcirculation analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Analysis; Automatic; Haemorrhagic shock; Manual; Microcirculation
Year: 2016 PMID: 27864774 PMCID: PMC5116019 DOI: 10.1186/s40635-016-0110-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp ISSN: 2197-425X
Haemodynamic variables and arterial blood gas analysis
| Variable | Baseline ( | Shock ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| MAP [mmHg] | 87 ± 11 | 40 ± 7 | <0.001§ |
| HR [bpm] | 72 ± 9 | 87 ± 11 | 0.003§ |
| CI [L min−1·m−2] | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | <0.001§ |
| SVI [mL·m−2] | 38 ± 14 | 20 ± 5 | 0.001§ |
| Hb [g·dL−1] | 8.6 ± 0.7 | 8.0 ± 0.5 | 0.003§ |
| Lactate [mmol·L−1] | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 0.001§ |
All values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Lactate = arterial lactate concentration
MAP mean arterial pressure, HR heart rate, CI cardiac index, SVI stroke volume index, Hb arterial haemoglobin concentration
§Significant difference between baseline and shock
Microcirculatory variables
| Analysis method | Variable | Baseline ( | Shock ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manual analysis | TVD [mm*mm−2] | 17.8 ± 4.2 | 17.8 ± 3.8 | 0.993 |
| PVD [mm*mm−2] | 15.6 ± 4.6 | 11.5 ± 6.5 | 0.041§ | |
| PPV [%] | 85.9 ± 11.8 | 62.7 ± 29.6 | 0.017§ | |
| Automatic analysis | TVD [mm*mm−2] | 10.6 ± 1.4 | 11.0 ± 1.9 | 0.460 |
| PVD [mm*mm−2] | 10.2 ± 1.4 | 10.8 ± 1.9 | 0.330 | |
| PPV [%] | 96.1 ± 6. | 97.9 ± 3.7 | 0.372 |
All values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
TVD total vessel density, PVD perfused vessel density, PPV proportion of perfused vessels
§Significant difference between baseline and shock
Intraclass correlation coefficient between manual and automatic analyses
| Variable | Data set | Number | ICC [95% CI] | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVD [mm*mm−2] | All videos | 85 | −0.267 [−0.949–0.176] | Poor |
| Baseline | 41 | −0.069 [−1.01–0.430] | Poor | |
| Shock | 44 | −0.568 [−1.874–0.144] | Poor | |
| PVD [mm*mm−2] | All videos | 85 | −0.219 [−0.875–0.208] | Poor |
| Baseline | 41 | −0.013 [−0.899–0.460] | Poor | |
| Shock | 44 | −0.379 [−1.538–0.247] | Poor | |
| PPV [%] | All videos | 85 | −0.074 [− 0.651–0.302] | Poor |
| Baseline | 41 | 0.274 [− 0.361–0.613] | Poor | |
| Shock | 44 | −0.193 [−1.187–0.349] | Poor |
Agreement as suggested by Cicchetti [15] (values below 0.40 are considered as “poor” agreement, between 0.40 and 0.59 as “fair” agreement, between 0.60 and 0.74 as “good” agreement and for greater 0.74, the level of agreement is “excellent”)
ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence interval, TVD total vessel density, PVD perfused vessel density, PPV proportion of perfused vessels
Bland-Altman analysis between manual and automatic analyses
| Variable | Data set | Number | Mean bias [95% CI] | LOA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVD [mm*mm−2] | All videos | 85 | 7.44 [6.12–8.77] | −4.57–19.45 |
| Baseline | 41 | 7.66 [5.66–9.67] | −4.79–20.11 | |
| Shock | 44 | 7.24 [5.42–9.06] | −4.50–18.98 | |
| PVD [mm*mm−2] | All videos | 85 | 3.37 [1.61–5.12] | −12.58–19.32 |
| Baseline | 41 | 5.61 [3.45–7.78] | −7.84–19.06 | |
| Shock | 44 | 1.27 [−1.38–3.93] | −15.84–18.38 | |
| PPV [%] | All videos | 85 | −23.09 [−29.66–(−16.51)] | −82.83–36.65 |
| Baseline | 41 | −11.62 [−17.34–(−5.91)] | −47.12–23.88 | |
| Shock | 44 | −33.77 [−44.60–(−22.94)] | −130.57–36.03 |
LOA limits of agreement, TVD total vessel density, PVD perfused vessel density, PPV proportion of perfused vessels
Fig. 1Bland-Altman plots for a total vessel density and b perfused vessel density (each n = 85). Bland and Altman recommended plotting the mean of two measurement methods against the difference of both [17]. Continuous line represents the mean difference whereas upper and lower dashed lines represent the limits of agreement (LOA) (equivalent to ±1.96 SD of mean difference). Bland-Altman plots have to be inspected visually. Mean difference represents the mean bias between measurements. LOA are a measure of dispersion between both methods. The evaluator has to decide whether these values are acceptable in the context of the measured variable. TVD total vessel density, PVD perfused vessel density, SD standard deviation, LOA limits of agreement
Fig. 2Screenshot of capillary networks analysed a manually and b automatically. Screenshot of the same video: a analysed manually by an experienced user with the AVA software version 3.2 and b analysed automatically by the AVA software version 4.2. Borders of vessels in panel a are coloured red, and centre lines of vessels in panel b are coloured lime green. Marks in panel b show examples of differences from automatic to manual analysis: Arrowheads = no vessel detected compared to manual analysis; arrows = more vessels detected as by manual analysis