Improved visualization of peripherally inserted central catheters on chest radiographs of neonates using fractional multiscale image processing.
Catheter tip visualization
Chest radiograph
Diagnostic confidence
Fractional multiscale image processing
Neonates
PICC
Post-processing
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2019
07 01 2019
Historique:
received:
01
02
2018
accepted:
26
12
2018
entrez:
8
1
2019
pubmed:
8
1
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) provide secure intravenous access for the delivery of life-sustaining medications and nutrition. They are commonly used in pediatrics. Confirmation of correct central catheter tip position is crucial. Verification is usually done by a radiograph. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of Fractional Multiscale image Processing (FMP) to detect PICC tips on the digital chest radiographs of neonates. A total of 94 radiographs of 47 patients were included in the study. 29 patients were male, 18 were female. The mean age of all examined children was 9.2 days (range 0-99 days). In total, six readers (two radiologists, two residents in radiology, one last year medical student, one neonatologist) evaluated 94 unprocessed and catheter-enhanced radiographs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor catheter tip visualization, 5 = excellent catheter tip visualization). Additionally, the two radiologists evaluated the diagnostic confidence for chest pathologies using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor diagnostic confidence, 5 = excellent diagnostic confidence). Radiographs were evaluated on a dedicated workstation. In all cases, the catheter-enhanced radiograph rated higher than (n = 471), or equal (n = 93) to, the unprocessed radiograph when visualizing catheter tips. 87% of the catheter-enhanced radiographs obtained a rating of 4 or higher, while only 42% of unprocessed radiographs received 4 or more points. Regarding diagnostic confidence for chest pathologies one radiologist rated two catheter-enhanced radiographs higher than the unprocessed radiographs, while all other 186 evaluations rated the catheter-enhanced radiographs equal to (n = 78) or lower than (n = 108) the unprocessed radiographs. Only 60% of the catheter-enhanced radiographs yielded a diagnostic confidence of 4 or higher, while 90% of the unprocessed images received 4 or more points. Catheter-enhanced digital chest radiographs demonstrate improved visualization of low contrast PICC tips in neonates compared to unprocessed radiographs. Furthermore, they enable detection of accompanying chest pathologies. However, definitive diagnosis of chest pathologies should be made on unprocessed radiographs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) provide secure intravenous access for the delivery of life-sustaining medications and nutrition. They are commonly used in pediatrics. Confirmation of correct central catheter tip position is crucial. Verification is usually done by a radiograph. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of Fractional Multiscale image Processing (FMP) to detect PICC tips on the digital chest radiographs of neonates.
METHODS
A total of 94 radiographs of 47 patients were included in the study. 29 patients were male, 18 were female. The mean age of all examined children was 9.2 days (range 0-99 days). In total, six readers (two radiologists, two residents in radiology, one last year medical student, one neonatologist) evaluated 94 unprocessed and catheter-enhanced radiographs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor catheter tip visualization, 5 = excellent catheter tip visualization). Additionally, the two radiologists evaluated the diagnostic confidence for chest pathologies using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor diagnostic confidence, 5 = excellent diagnostic confidence). Radiographs were evaluated on a dedicated workstation.
RESULTS
In all cases, the catheter-enhanced radiograph rated higher than (n = 471), or equal (n = 93) to, the unprocessed radiograph when visualizing catheter tips. 87% of the catheter-enhanced radiographs obtained a rating of 4 or higher, while only 42% of unprocessed radiographs received 4 or more points. Regarding diagnostic confidence for chest pathologies one radiologist rated two catheter-enhanced radiographs higher than the unprocessed radiographs, while all other 186 evaluations rated the catheter-enhanced radiographs equal to (n = 78) or lower than (n = 108) the unprocessed radiographs. Only 60% of the catheter-enhanced radiographs yielded a diagnostic confidence of 4 or higher, while 90% of the unprocessed images received 4 or more points.
CONCLUSION
Catheter-enhanced digital chest radiographs demonstrate improved visualization of low contrast PICC tips in neonates compared to unprocessed radiographs. Furthermore, they enable detection of accompanying chest pathologies. However, definitive diagnosis of chest pathologies should be made on unprocessed radiographs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30612560
doi: 10.1186/s12880-018-0302-4
pii: 10.1186/s12880-018-0302-4
pmc: PMC6322299
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3Références
Acad Radiol. 1996 Oct;3(10):834-41
pubmed: 8923902
J Perinatol. 2012 Dec;32(12):941-6
pubmed: 22343397
Clin Imaging. 2011 Sep-Oct;35(5):346-52
pubmed: 21872123
J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Feb;10(2):146-8
pubmed: 23374694
Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):887-92
pubmed: 15734939
Am J Perinatol. 2012 Feb;29(2):101-6
pubmed: 22105438
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 May;50(5):786-9
pubmed: 25783362
Pediatr Surg Int. 2016 Nov;32(11):1053-1057
pubmed: 27590475
Med J Malaysia. 2016 Jun;71(3):147-8
pubmed: 27495892
Am J Infect Control. 2011 May;39(4 Suppl 1):S1-34
pubmed: 21511081
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Aug;40(6):890-5
pubmed: 25700180
Adv Neonatal Care. 2013 Jun;13(3):198-204
pubmed: 23722492
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 May;52(9):1108-1115
pubmed: 21454298
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1984 May-Jun;8(3):293-7
pubmed: 6429367
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 May;167(5):429-35
pubmed: 23549677
Pediatr Radiol. 1987;17(1):15-7
pubmed: 3822578
Eur J Pediatr. 2019 Feb;178(2):173-179
pubmed: 30374753
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):426-9
pubmed: 20016395
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2154
pubmed: 24869737
Clin Radiol. 2011 Sep;66(9):826-32
pubmed: 21570679
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 May;152(5):436-9
pubmed: 9605025
J Perinatol. 2013 Oct;33(10):791-4
pubmed: 23765173
N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 13;370(11):e17
pubmed: 24620893
Pediatrics. 2001 Feb;107(2):E28
pubmed: 11158502
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012 May;31(5):519-21
pubmed: 22189533
Neonatal Netw. 2010 Jan-Feb;29(1):23-35
pubmed: 20085874
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Jun;27(6):556-61; quiz 562-3
pubmed: 21642797