Automated and reference methods for the calculation of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral or ejection fraction by non-cardiologists: a systematic review on the agreement of the two methods.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1007/s10877-024-01259-7
Filipe André Gonzalez, Mateusz Zawadka, Rita Varudo, Simone Messina, Alessandro Caruso, Cristina Santonocito, Michel Slama, Filippo Sanfilippo
{"title":"Automated and reference methods for the calculation of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral or ejection fraction by non-cardiologists: a systematic review on the agreement of the two methods.","authors":"Filipe André Gonzalez, Mateusz Zawadka, Rita Varudo, Simone Messina, Alessandro Caruso, Cristina Santonocito, Michel Slama, Filippo Sanfilippo","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01259-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Echocardiography is crucial for evaluating patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and velocity time integral (VTI) aid in diagnosing shock, but bedside calculations can be time-consuming and prone to variability. Artificial intelligence technology shows promise in providing assistance to clinicians performing point-of-care echocardiography. We conducted a systematic review, utilizing a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, to evaluate the interchangeability of LVEF and/or VTI measurements obtained through automated mode as compared to the echocardiographic reference methods in non-cardiology settings, e.g., Simpson´s method (LVEF) or manual trace (VTI). Eight studies were included, four studying automated-LVEF, three automated-VTI, and one both. When reported, the feasibility of automated measurements ranged from 78.4 to 93.3%. The automated-LVEF had a mean bias ranging from 0 to 2.9% for experienced operators and from 0% to -10.2% for non-experienced ones, but in both cases, with wide limits of agreement (LoA). For the automated-VTI, the mean bias ranged between - 1.7 cm and - 1.9 cm. The correlation between automated and reference methods for automated-LVEF ranged between 0.63 and 0.86 for experienced and between 0.56 and 0.81 for non-experienced operators. Only one study reported a correlation between automated-VTI and manual VTI (0.86 for experienced and 0.79 for non-experienced operators). We found limited studies reporting the interchangeability of automated LVEF or VTI measurements versus a reference approach. The accuracy and precision of these automated methods should be considered within the clinical context and decision-making. Such variability could be acceptable, especially in the hands of trained operators. PROSPERO number CRD42024564868.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01259-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Echocardiography is crucial for evaluating patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and velocity time integral (VTI) aid in diagnosing shock, but bedside calculations can be time-consuming and prone to variability. Artificial intelligence technology shows promise in providing assistance to clinicians performing point-of-care echocardiography. We conducted a systematic review, utilizing a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, to evaluate the interchangeability of LVEF and/or VTI measurements obtained through automated mode as compared to the echocardiographic reference methods in non-cardiology settings, e.g., Simpson´s method (LVEF) or manual trace (VTI). Eight studies were included, four studying automated-LVEF, three automated-VTI, and one both. When reported, the feasibility of automated measurements ranged from 78.4 to 93.3%. The automated-LVEF had a mean bias ranging from 0 to 2.9% for experienced operators and from 0% to -10.2% for non-experienced ones, but in both cases, with wide limits of agreement (LoA). For the automated-VTI, the mean bias ranged between - 1.7 cm and - 1.9 cm. The correlation between automated and reference methods for automated-LVEF ranged between 0.63 and 0.86 for experienced and between 0.56 and 0.81 for non-experienced operators. Only one study reported a correlation between automated-VTI and manual VTI (0.86 for experienced and 0.79 for non-experienced operators). We found limited studies reporting the interchangeability of automated LVEF or VTI measurements versus a reference approach. The accuracy and precision of these automated methods should be considered within the clinical context and decision-making. Such variability could be acceptable, especially in the hands of trained operators. PROSPERO number CRD42024564868.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非心脏病专家计算左心室流出道速度积分或射血分数的自动方法和参考方法:两种方法一致性的系统综述
超声心动图对评估患者的临床恶化风险至关重要。左心室射血分数(LVEF)和速度时间积分(VTI)有助于诊断休克,但床边计算可能耗时且容易变化。人工智能技术有望为临床医生提供即时超声心动图的帮助。我们进行了一项系统综述,利用PubMed上的全面文献检索,评估通过自动模式获得的LVEF和/或VTI测量结果与非心脏病学环境下超声心动图参考方法(例如辛普森法(LVEF)或手动追踪(VTI))的互换性。包括8项研究,4项研究自动lvef, 3项研究自动vti, 1项研究两者兼而有之。当报告时,自动化测量的可行性范围从78.4到93.3%。对于经验丰富的操作人员,自动lvef的平均偏差范围为0 ~ 2.9%,对于没有经验的操作人员,平均偏差范围为0% ~ -10.2%,但在这两种情况下,均具有较宽的一致性限制(LoA)。对于自动vti,平均偏差范围在- 1.7 cm到- 1.9 cm之间。对于经验丰富的操作人员,自动化方法和参考方法之间的相关性在0.63 - 0.86之间,对于没有经验的操作人员,相关性在0.56 - 0.81之间。只有一项研究报告了自动VTI和手动VTI之间的相关性(经验丰富的操作员为0.86,无经验的操作员为0.79)。我们发现有限的研究报告了自动化LVEF或VTI测量与参考方法的互换性。这些自动化方法的准确性和精密度应在临床环境和决策中加以考虑。这种可变性是可以接受的,特别是在训练有素的操作员手中。普洛斯彼罗号码CRD42024564868。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
期刊最新文献
Comment on "Effect of postoperative peripheral nerve blocks on the analgesia nociception index under propofol anesthesia: an observational study." Characterizing drivers of change in intraoperative cerebral saturation using supervised machine learning. Personalized intraoperative arterial pressure management and mitochondrial oxygen tension in patients having major non-cardiac surgery: a pilot substudy of the IMPROVE trial. Virtual reality simulations to alleviate fear and anxiety in children awaiting MRI: a small-scale randomized controlled trial. Is noninvasive hemoglobin measurement suitable for children undergoing preoperative anesthesia consultation?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1