4.6 Article

New Time-Frequency Method for Cerebral Autoregulation in Newborns: Predictive Capacity for Clinical Outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 165, 期 5, 页码 897-U324

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.06.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [SAS/2481/2009]
  2. Red de Salud Materno-Infantil y del Desarrollo (SAMID Network) [RD08/0072/0018, RD12/0026/0004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To describe an alternative analysis in the frequency-domain of the temporal relationship between 2 biological signals and evaluate the method's predictive capacity for classifying infants at risk for an adverse outcome. Study design We studied 54 infants (mean gestational age 27 weeks) with invasive mean arterial blood pressure monitoring. The bivariate autoregressive spectral coherence (BiAR-COH) method and the spectral coherence methods were used to analyze the relationship between spontaneous changes in mean arterial blood pressure and the near-infrared tissue oxygenation index. Results The mean postnatal age at the beginning and end of the autoregulation study was 6.0 (3.0) and 29.0 (7.5) hours, respectively. The BiAR-COH was superior to the spectral coherence in predicting low superior vena cava (SVC) flow (<= 41 mL/kg per minute), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.90; P < .001). The BiAR-COH threshold for identifying low SVC flow was 0.577, with 0.8 sensitivity and 0.76 specificity. After adjusting for the repeated measures effect (multiple epochs) in a given patient, the averaged BiAR-COH per patient and averaged COH per patient were calculated as the average value per patient. The pBiAR-COH (but not the pCOH) was associated with intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3 and 4 and predicted mortality. Conclusions The BiAR-COH classifier identifies low SVC flow infants who are at risk for brain hypoperfusion. The BiAR-COH is superior to frequency domain methods in predicting adverse outcomes in infants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据