A new algorithm for off-line automated emboli detection based on the pseudo-wigner power distribution and the dual...

Research on microembolic signals (MES) using the dual-gate technique has shown promising results, when the time difference (Deltat) of a MES in two sample volumes (SVs) placed serially has been measured manually. On the other hand, the computerized discrimination of MES and artefacts has been reported not to be superior to algorithms based on a single SV. Therefore, a dataset containing MES as well as four types of artefacts was made to test a preliminary version of a new algorithm for automated emboli detection. We monitored 20 patients during carotid endarterectomy (n = 17) and heart surgery (n = 3). Two transcranial Doppler (TCD) signals with a partial overlap of the SVs were recorded online and analysed off-line with an algorithm based on three consecutive steps: 1. Is there an intensity increase in both channels (64-point FFT; 50% overlap)? 2. What is the expected time difference (Deltat), with the velocity measured in channel 1 as the calculation basis? 3. What is the 'exact' Deltat (pseudo-Wigner power function)? Two human experts decided whether a signal was a MES or belonged to one of the four artefact groups. Of a total of 97 MES, 28% (n = 27) could not be detected in the distal channel. Thus, 72% (n = 70) of the MES were present in both channels and could be analysed based on the abovementioned criteria. Of these 70 MES, 87% (n = 61) were correctly identified off-line. We assessed artefact rejection for four different types of artefacts: changes of TCD settings, probe movement, low flow artefacts and electrocautery. The reliability of artefact rejection was 98% for setting changes (n = 382), 96% for probe movement (n = 477) and 98% for low flow artefacts (n = 91), but only 68% for electrocautery (n = 264). These preliminary results are promising, but need careful interpretation: 28% of the MES were not detectable in the distal SV, probably due to a poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and anatomical restrictions. Electrocautery signals were insufficiently rejected. However, even an artefact rejection of 96% can be insufficient if the number of MES is very small compared to the number of artefacts.