4.6 Article

Morphological Clustering and Analysis of Continuous Intracranial Pressure

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 56, Issue 3, Pages 696-705

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2008.2008636

Keywords

Hydrocephalus; injury; intracranial pressure (ICP); traumatic brain pulse morphology

Funding

  1. National institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [R21-NS055998, R21-NS055045, R21-NS059797, R01-NS054881]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The continuous measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) is an important and established clinical tool that is used in the management of many neurosurgical disorders such as traumatic brain injury. Only mean ICP information is used currently in the prevailing clinical practice, ignoring the useful information in ICP pulse waveform that can be continuously acquired and is potentially useful for forecasting intracranial and cerebrovascular pathophysiological changes. The present study introduces and validates an algorithm of performing automated analysis of continuous ICP pulse waveform. This algorithm is capable of enhancing ICP signal quality, recognizing nonartifactual ICP pulses, and optimally designating the three well-established subcomponents in an ICP pulse. Validation of the proposed algorithm is done by comparing nonartifactual pulse recognition and peak designation results from a human observer with those from automated analysis based on a large signal database built from 700 h of recordings from 66 neurosurgical patients. An accuracy of 97.84% is achieved in recognizing nonartifactual ICP pulses. An accuracy of 90.17%, 87.56%, and 86.53% was obtained for designating each of the three established ICP subpeaks. These results show that the proposed algorithm can be reliably applied to process continuous ICP recordings from real clinical environment to extract useful morphological features of ICP pulses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available