颅内温度测量的差异- Licox®和Hemedex®系统之间的系统分析

J. Bracht
{"title":"颅内温度测量的差异- Licox®和Hemedex®系统之间的系统分析","authors":"J. Bracht","doi":"10.2174/1874828720130909001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Multimodality brain monitoring includes intracranial temperature (ICT) measurements. Different ICT readings have been reported from Licox ® and Hemedex ® systems used in the same patient with the Hummingbird ® \"SynergyDuo Ventricular\" introducer. Methods: To investigate the differences we report an analysis of causes for different ICT readings. In keeping with the radial brain ICT gradient model model we calculated ICTs according to the sensors' penetration depths and compared the results to clinical data from six patients. Results: The ICT accuracy is ±0.2°C for Licox ® and ±0.3°C for Hemedex ® so any ICT difference � ±0.5°C between the systems is not significant. The Hemedex ® -ICT sensor is placed 15.5mm deeper than the Licox ® -ICT sensor with the Hummingbird ® . The calculatedICT from the model range from -0.7°C to -1.0°C for a 37.5°C arterial temperature, and a 22°C ambient temperature. TheICT (ICTLicox ® - ICTHemedex ® ) in six patients were -0.6°C, SD = 0.7°C, median = -0.6°C, max = 0.4°C, min = -5.7°C, range 6.1°C. 41.1% of recorded data lie within the accuracy range of ±0.5°C. 53.8% lie within a range between -0.5°C and -1.5°C, and represent the differences which can be explained by different sensor insertion depths and the model. Only 5% were outliers withICT < -1.5°C. Conclusions: This study shows that the discrepancy in ICT measurements using different sensors can be explained by (a) the ICT measurement accuracies/specifications, and (b) different insertion depths. Other causes may include (c) environmental conditions and (d) unknown factors secondary to body - and/or brain physiology.","PeriodicalId":88750,"journal":{"name":"The open critical care medicine journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0-0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Intracranial Temperature Measurements - A Systematic Analysis Between the Licox ® and Hemedex ® Systems\",\"authors\":\"J. Bracht\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874828720130909001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Multimodality brain monitoring includes intracranial temperature (ICT) measurements. Different ICT readings have been reported from Licox ® and Hemedex ® systems used in the same patient with the Hummingbird ® \\\"SynergyDuo Ventricular\\\" introducer. Methods: To investigate the differences we report an analysis of causes for different ICT readings. In keeping with the radial brain ICT gradient model model we calculated ICTs according to the sensors' penetration depths and compared the results to clinical data from six patients. Results: The ICT accuracy is ±0.2°C for Licox ® and ±0.3°C for Hemedex ® so any ICT difference � ±0.5°C between the systems is not significant. The Hemedex ® -ICT sensor is placed 15.5mm deeper than the Licox ® -ICT sensor with the Hummingbird ® . The calculatedICT from the model range from -0.7°C to -1.0°C for a 37.5°C arterial temperature, and a 22°C ambient temperature. TheICT (ICTLicox ® - ICTHemedex ® ) in six patients were -0.6°C, SD = 0.7°C, median = -0.6°C, max = 0.4°C, min = -5.7°C, range 6.1°C. 41.1% of recorded data lie within the accuracy range of ±0.5°C. 53.8% lie within a range between -0.5°C and -1.5°C, and represent the differences which can be explained by different sensor insertion depths and the model. Only 5% were outliers withICT < -1.5°C. Conclusions: This study shows that the discrepancy in ICT measurements using different sensors can be explained by (a) the ICT measurement accuracies/specifications, and (b) different insertion depths. Other causes may include (c) environmental conditions and (d) unknown factors secondary to body - and/or brain physiology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The open critical care medicine journal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0-0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The open critical care medicine journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874828720130909001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open critical care medicine journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874828720130909001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:多模态脑监测包括颅内温度(ICT)测量。在使用Hummingbird®“SynergyDuo Ventricular”引入器的同一患者中,Licox®和Hemedex®系统显示了不同的ICT读数。方法:为了调查差异,我们报告了不同ICT读数的原因分析。为了与径向脑ICT梯度模型保持一致,我们根据传感器的穿透深度计算ICT,并将结果与6例患者的临床数据进行比较。结果:Licox®的ICT精度为±0.2°C, Hemedex®的ICT精度为±0.3°C,因此系统之间±0.5°C的ICT差异不显著。Hemedex®-ICT传感器比带Hummingbird®的Licox®-ICT传感器深15.5毫米。该模型的calculatedICT范围从-0.7°C到-1.0°C为37.5°C动脉温度,和22°C环境温度。6例患者的ict (ICTLicox®- ICTHemedex®)为-0.6°C, SD = 0.7°C,中位数= -0.6°C,最大值= 0.4°C,最小值= -5.7°C,范围6.1°C。41.1%的记录数据在±0.5°C的精度范围内。53.8%的温度范围在-0.5°C和-1.5°C之间,这可以通过不同的传感器插入深度和模型来解释。只有5%是ict < -1.5°C的异常值。结论:不同传感器在ICT测量中的差异可以通过(a) ICT测量精度/规格和(b)不同的插入深度来解释。其他原因可能包括(c)环境条件和(d)继发于身体和/或大脑生理的未知因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Intracranial Temperature Measurements - A Systematic Analysis Between the Licox ® and Hemedex ® Systems
Background: Multimodality brain monitoring includes intracranial temperature (ICT) measurements. Different ICT readings have been reported from Licox ® and Hemedex ® systems used in the same patient with the Hummingbird ® "SynergyDuo Ventricular" introducer. Methods: To investigate the differences we report an analysis of causes for different ICT readings. In keeping with the radial brain ICT gradient model model we calculated ICTs according to the sensors' penetration depths and compared the results to clinical data from six patients. Results: The ICT accuracy is ±0.2°C for Licox ® and ±0.3°C for Hemedex ® so any ICT difference � ±0.5°C between the systems is not significant. The Hemedex ® -ICT sensor is placed 15.5mm deeper than the Licox ® -ICT sensor with the Hummingbird ® . The calculatedICT from the model range from -0.7°C to -1.0°C for a 37.5°C arterial temperature, and a 22°C ambient temperature. TheICT (ICTLicox ® - ICTHemedex ® ) in six patients were -0.6°C, SD = 0.7°C, median = -0.6°C, max = 0.4°C, min = -5.7°C, range 6.1°C. 41.1% of recorded data lie within the accuracy range of ±0.5°C. 53.8% lie within a range between -0.5°C and -1.5°C, and represent the differences which can be explained by different sensor insertion depths and the model. Only 5% were outliers withICT < -1.5°C. Conclusions: This study shows that the discrepancy in ICT measurements using different sensors can be explained by (a) the ICT measurement accuracies/specifications, and (b) different insertion depths. Other causes may include (c) environmental conditions and (d) unknown factors secondary to body - and/or brain physiology.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信