(Stroke. 2001;32:2803.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
From the Department of Neurology, CHUV (G. Devuyst, V.K., P.R., P.-A.D., J.B.), the Signal Processing Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (G.A.D., J.-M.V.), and the Department of Applied Physics, UNIL (C.L., G. Dietler), Lausanne, and the Department of Neurology, HCUG (R.S.), Geneva, Switzerland; the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Münster, Germany (M.R., D.W.D., E.B.R.); and the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Barcelona (C.M.), and the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Girona (J.S.), Spain.
Correspondence to Gérald Devuyst, Department of Neurology, CHUV, rue du Bugnon 15, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail gerald.devuyst{at}chuv.hospvd.ch or Georges Darbellay, Signal Processing Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail georges.darbellay@epfl.ch
Background and Purpose Transcranial Doppler (TCD) can detect high-intensity transient signals (HITS) in the cerebral circulation. HITS may correspond to artifacts or solid or gaseous emboli. The aim of this study was to develop an offline automated Doppler system allowing the classification of HITS.
Methods We studied 600 HITS in vivo, including 200 artifacts from normal subjects, 200 solid emboli from patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis, and 200 gaseous emboli in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. The study was 2-fold, each part involving 300 HITS (100 of each type). The first 300 HITS (learning set) were used to construct an automated classification algorithm. The remaining 300 HITS (validation set) were used to check the validity of this algorithm. To classify HITS, we combined dual-gate TCD with a wavelet representation and compared it with the current "gold standard," the human experts.
Results A combination of the peak frequency of HITS and the time delay makes it possible to separate artifacts from emboli. On the validation set, we achieved a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%. To distinguish between solid and gaseous emboli, where positive refers now to the solid emboli, we used the peak frequency, the relative power, and the envelope symmetry of HITS. On the validation set, we achieved a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 86%, a conditional PPV of 89%, and a conditional NPV of 89%.
Conclusions An automated wavelet representation combined with dual-gate TCD can reliably reject artifacts from emboli. From a clinical standpoint, however, this approach has only a fair accuracy in differentiating between solid and gaseous emboli.
Key Words: HITS solid/gaseous emboli automated system dual-gate TCD wavelets
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Lynch and J. Riley Microemboli detection on extracorporeal bypass circuitsa Perfusion, January 1, 2008; 23(1): 23 - 32. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Saqqur, N. Dean, M. Schebel, M. D. Hill, A. Salam, A. Shuaib, and A. M. Demchuk Improved Detection of Microbubble Signals Using Power M-Mode Doppler Stroke, January 1, 2004; 35 (1): e14 - e17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Brucher and D. Russell Automatic Online Embolus Detection and Artifact Rejection With the First Multifrequency Transcranial Doppler Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 1969 - 1974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Russell and R. Brucher Online Automatic Discrimination Between Solid and Gaseous Cerebral Microemboli With the First Multifrequency Transcranial Doppler Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 1975 - 1980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2001 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |