Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure

BACKGROUND: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements. METHODS: ABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements. RESULTS: For the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.

A comparative study on manual and automatic slice-to-volume registration of CT images

In order to assess the clinical relevance of a slice-to-volume registration algorithm, this technique was compared to manual registration. Reformatted images obtained from a diagnostic CT examination of the lower abdomen were reviewed and manually registered by 41 individuals. The results were refined by the algorithm. Furthermore, a fully automatic registration of the single slices to the whole CT examination, without manual initialization, was also performed. The manual registration error for rotation and translation was found to be 2.7+/-2.8 degrees and 4.0+/-2.5 mm. The automated registration algorithm significantly reduced the registration error to 1.6+/-2.6 degrees and 1.3+/-1.6 mm (p = 0.01). In 3 of 41 (7.3%) registration cases, the automated registration algorithm failed completely. On average, the time required for manual registration was 213+/-197 s; automatic registration took 82+/-15 s. Registration was also performed without any human interaction. The resulting registration error of the algorithm without manual pre-registration was found to be 2.9+/-2.9 degrees and 1.1+/-0.2 mm. Here, a registration took 91+/-6 s, on average. Overall, the automated registration algorithm improved the accuracy of manual registration by 59% in rotation and 325% in translation. The absolute values are well within a clinically relevant range.