利用双谱指数和脑电图连通性测量监测清醒和麻醉无意识状态。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical EEG and Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1177/15500594221131680
Marianne Cecilie Johansen Nævra, Luis Romundstad, Anders Aasheim, Pål Gunnar Larsson
{"title":"利用双谱指数和脑电图连通性测量监测清醒和麻醉无意识状态。","authors":"Marianne Cecilie Johansen Nævra,&nbsp;Luis Romundstad,&nbsp;Anders Aasheim,&nbsp;Pål Gunnar Larsson","doi":"10.1177/15500594221131680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective.</i> Our objective was to compare three electroencephalography (EEG)-based methods with anesthesiologist clinical judgment of the awake and anesthetized unconscious states. <i>Methods.</i> EEG recorded from 25 channels and from four channel bilateral Bispectral index (BIS) electrodes were collected from 20 patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. To measure connectivity we applied Directed Transfer Function (DTF) in eight channels of the EEG, and extracted data from BIS over the same time segments. Shannon's entropy was applied to assess the complexity of the EEG signal. Discriminant analysis was used to evaluate the data in relation to clinical judgment. <i>Results.</i> Assessing anesthetic state relative clinical judgment, the bilateral BIS gave the highest accuracy (ACC) (95.4%) and lowest false positive discovery rate (FDR) (0.5%) . Equivalent DTF gave 94.5% for ACC and 2.6% for FDR. Combining all methods gave ACC = 94.9% and FDR = 1%. Generally, entropy scored lower on ACC and higher on FDR than the other methods (ACC 90.87% and FDR 4.6%). BIS showed at least a one minute delay in 18 of the 20 patients. <i>Conclusions.</i> Our results show that BIS and DTF both have a high ACC and low FDR. Because of time delays in BIS values, we recommend combining the two methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":10682,"journal":{"name":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","volume":"54 3","pages":"273-280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4c/58/10.1177_15500594221131680.PMC10084521.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monitoring the Awake and Anesthetized Unconscious States Using Bispectral Index and Electroencephalographic Connectivity Measures.\",\"authors\":\"Marianne Cecilie Johansen Nævra,&nbsp;Luis Romundstad,&nbsp;Anders Aasheim,&nbsp;Pål Gunnar Larsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15500594221131680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Objective.</i> Our objective was to compare three electroencephalography (EEG)-based methods with anesthesiologist clinical judgment of the awake and anesthetized unconscious states. <i>Methods.</i> EEG recorded from 25 channels and from four channel bilateral Bispectral index (BIS) electrodes were collected from 20 patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. To measure connectivity we applied Directed Transfer Function (DTF) in eight channels of the EEG, and extracted data from BIS over the same time segments. Shannon's entropy was applied to assess the complexity of the EEG signal. Discriminant analysis was used to evaluate the data in relation to clinical judgment. <i>Results.</i> Assessing anesthetic state relative clinical judgment, the bilateral BIS gave the highest accuracy (ACC) (95.4%) and lowest false positive discovery rate (FDR) (0.5%) . Equivalent DTF gave 94.5% for ACC and 2.6% for FDR. Combining all methods gave ACC = 94.9% and FDR = 1%. Generally, entropy scored lower on ACC and higher on FDR than the other methods (ACC 90.87% and FDR 4.6%). BIS showed at least a one minute delay in 18 of the 20 patients. <i>Conclusions.</i> Our results show that BIS and DTF both have a high ACC and low FDR. Because of time delays in BIS values, we recommend combining the two methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"54 3\",\"pages\":\"273-280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4c/58/10.1177_15500594221131680.PMC10084521.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594221131680\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594221131680","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标。我们的目的是比较三种基于脑电图(EEG)的方法与麻醉师对清醒和麻醉无意识状态的临床判断。方法。收集20例全麻手术患者25通道和4通道双侧双谱指数(BIS)电极记录的脑电图。为了测量脑电的连通性,我们在脑电的8个通道中应用了有向传递函数(DTF),并在同一时间段提取了BIS数据。利用香农熵来评估脑电信号的复杂度。采用判别分析对与临床判断相关的数据进行评价。结果。评估麻醉状态相对临床判断时,双侧BIS准确率最高(ACC)(95.4%),假阳性发现率最低(FDR)(0.5%)。ACC的等效DTF为94.5%,FDR为2.6%。综合各方法得出ACC = 94.9%, FDR = 1%。总的来说,熵在ACC上的得分较低,在FDR上的得分较高(ACC 90.87%, FDR 4.6%)。BIS显示20例患者中有18例至少延迟1分钟。结论。我们的研究结果表明,BIS和DTF都具有高ACC和低FDR。由于BIS值的时间延迟,我们建议将两种方法结合使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Monitoring the Awake and Anesthetized Unconscious States Using Bispectral Index and Electroencephalographic Connectivity Measures.

Objective. Our objective was to compare three electroencephalography (EEG)-based methods with anesthesiologist clinical judgment of the awake and anesthetized unconscious states. Methods. EEG recorded from 25 channels and from four channel bilateral Bispectral index (BIS) electrodes were collected from 20 patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. To measure connectivity we applied Directed Transfer Function (DTF) in eight channels of the EEG, and extracted data from BIS over the same time segments. Shannon's entropy was applied to assess the complexity of the EEG signal. Discriminant analysis was used to evaluate the data in relation to clinical judgment. Results. Assessing anesthetic state relative clinical judgment, the bilateral BIS gave the highest accuracy (ACC) (95.4%) and lowest false positive discovery rate (FDR) (0.5%) . Equivalent DTF gave 94.5% for ACC and 2.6% for FDR. Combining all methods gave ACC = 94.9% and FDR = 1%. Generally, entropy scored lower on ACC and higher on FDR than the other methods (ACC 90.87% and FDR 4.6%). BIS showed at least a one minute delay in 18 of the 20 patients. Conclusions. Our results show that BIS and DTF both have a high ACC and low FDR. Because of time delays in BIS values, we recommend combining the two methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical EEG and Neuroscience conveys clinically relevant research and development in electroencephalography and neuroscience. Original articles on any aspect of clinical neurophysiology or related work in allied fields are invited for publication.
期刊最新文献
Ikelos-RWA. Validation of an Automatic Tool to Quantify REM Sleep Without Atonia. Age-dependent Electroencephalogram Characteristics During Different Levels of Anesthetic Depth. The Clinical Utility of Finding Unexpected Subclinical Spikes Detected by High-Density EEG During Neurodiagnostic Investigations Comparative Analysis of LORETA Z Score Neurofeedback and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Quality of Life and Response Inhibition in Individuals with Opioid Addiction Deep Learning-Based Artificial Intelligence Can Differentiate Treatment-Resistant and Responsive Depression Cases with High Accuracy
×
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