Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Cerebral Aneurysm, Cerebral Ischemia, Stroke, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Aneurysmal, Vasospasm, Cerebral
Conditions
Keywords
Transcranial Doppler, TCD, Interrater Variability, Intrarater Variability, Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound, Neurocritical Care, DCI, Delayed Cerebral Ischemia, MCA, PCA, Mean Flow Velocity
Brief summary
This study aims to determine the inter- and intra-variability of Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound in neuro-critical care patients who are planned for consecutive daily TCD evaluations.
Detailed description
Patients enrolled in the study are recruited from the pool of neuro-critical care patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). When the patients are admitted in the surgical ICU, the study staff will determine eligibility based on the protocol inclusion criteria. Due to the nature of the disease, there is a high likelihood that patients are either unconscious, of limited mental capacity and/or have been intubated therefore when appropriate the legally authorized representative will be utilized to obtain research consent. To meet study inclusion, transcranial Doppler (TCD) testing will be ordered as part of the standard of care for these patients. The test will not be ordered solely for research purposes. There are no known side effects from the non-invasive measurement of cerebral blood flow using ultrasound Three different TCD technicians will do triplicate readings on 3 consecutive days on up to 12 patients already undergoing TCD as ordered by their treating team. Standard of care on specific neuro critical care patients (such as cerebral aneurysms) is to undergo daily TCD monitoring to assess for possible vasospasm. Patients will be in the supine position while measurements are obtained. The probe will be placed in the preauricular region of the temporal window
Interventions
Transcranial Doppler is a non-invasive, painless, ultrasound technique that uses high frequency sound waves to measure the rate and direction of blood flow vessels in the brain.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
1. Adults 18 years of age or older 2. Current hospitalization for a neurologic issue and admitted to the surgical intensive care unit. 3. Undergoing daily transcranial Doppler imaging No 4. English speaking patients and/or legally authorized representative (LAR)
Exclusion criteria
1. Less than 18 years of age 2. Patient is unable to obtain consent and no LAR is identified to provide consent 3. Non-English speaking patient or LAR 4. Unable to perform the study due to lack of availability of TCD technologists
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurment | 3 Consecutive Days | The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
| Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurement | 3 consecutive days | The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
| Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | 3 Consecutive Days | The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
| Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | 3 Consecutive Days | The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
| Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | 3 consecutive days | The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
| Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | 3 consecutive days | The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Velocity Prompting Clinical Intervention | 3 Consecutive Days | Describe the change in velocity that prompts clinical intervention in symptomatic and asymptomatic vasospasm in neuro-critical care patients. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Summary Statistics for Depth | Across three visits (during 3 consecutive days) | The statistics are based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits on 3 consecutive days \* 3 technicians) |
| Summary Statistics for Each Measurement | Across three visits (during 3 consecutive days) | For each Measurement in the following table, the statistics are based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits on 3 consecutive days \* 3 technicians) |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Neuro-critical Care Patients Receiving Transcranial Doppler Imaging Neuro-critical care patients receiving Transcranial Doppler Imaging in the neurocritical care unit. | 3 |
| Total | 3 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Neuro-critical Care Patients Receiving Transcranial Doppler Imaging |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 51.7 years |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 1 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 2 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 2 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 3 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 2 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 1 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 3 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 3 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 3 |
Outcome results
Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurement
The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 consecutive days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurement | Depth Visit 1 | 0.938 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurement | Depth Visit 2 | 0.013 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurement | Depth Visit 3 | 0.904 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement
The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 consecutive days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | End Diastolic Velocity (EDV) Visit 1 | 0.986 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | EDV Visit 2 | 0.960 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | EDV Visit 3 | 0.817 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement
The inter-variability (agreement among 3 TCD technicians) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated based on the readings from the same visit of a patient by different technician as the index for the interrater reliability or agreement among the three technicians. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the agreement by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 consecutive days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | Peak Flow Velocity (PFV) Visit 1 | 0.974 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | PFV Visit 2 | 0.973 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Inter-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | PFV Visit 3 | 0.918 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurment
The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 Consecutive Days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurment | Depth by Technician A | -4.154 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurment | Depth by Technician B | 0.219 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - Depth Measurment | Depth by Technician C | 0.008 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient |
Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement
The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 Consecutive Days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | End Diastolic Velocity (EDV) by Technician A | 0.979 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | EDV by Technician B | 0.989 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - EDV Measurement | EDV by Technician C | 0.960 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement
The intra-variability (reliability or consistency within each TCD technician) was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Three technicians took measurements from the same patient at three different visits. The ICC is calculated for each technician based on the readings from the same patient. Based on the suggestion from Koo and Li (2016), the interpretation of the reliability by using the ICC is defined as: below 0.50 = poor, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, 0.76-0.90 = good, above 090 = excellent.
Time frame: 3 Consecutive Days
Population: Readings from all enrolled participants. Only three patients were enrolled, but each patient was measured by three separate technicians at three different visits, hence the 9 readings (for 3 patients) per visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | Peak Flow Velocity (PFV) by Technician A | 0.985 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | PFV by Technician B | 0.982 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
| All Participants | Determine the Intra-variability of TCD Ultrasound - PFV Measurement | PFV by Technician C | 0.963 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) |
Change in Velocity Prompting Clinical Intervention
Describe the change in velocity that prompts clinical intervention in symptomatic and asymptomatic vasospasm in neuro-critical care patients.
Time frame: 3 Consecutive Days
Population: Number of patients who had clinical interventions based on the change in velocity observed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Change in Velocity Prompting Clinical Intervention | 0 participants |
Summary Statistics for Depth
The statistics are based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits on 3 consecutive days \* 3 technicians)
Time frame: Across three visits (during 3 consecutive days)
Population: Based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits during 3 consecutive days\* 3 technicians)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Summary Statistics for Depth | 6.8 mm | Standard Deviation 7.3 |
Summary Statistics for Each Measurement
For each Measurement in the following table, the statistics are based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits on 3 consecutive days \* 3 technicians)
Time frame: Across three visits (during 3 consecutive days)
Population: Based on 27 measurements from those 3 subjects (27 values = 3 subjects \* 3 visits during 3 consecutive days\* 3 technicians)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Summary Statistics for Each Measurement | 37.4 cm/sec | Standard Deviation 13.7 |
| Mean Flow Velocity (MFV) | Summary Statistics for Each Measurement | 125.68 cm/sec | Standard Deviation 29.77 |
| Peak Flow Velocity (PFV) | Summary Statistics for Each Measurement | 100.8 cm/sec | Standard Deviation 21.4 |