Artifact Processing Methods Influence on Intraoperative Hypotension Quantification and Outcome Effect Estimates

Abstract

Background Physiologic data that is automatically collected during anesthesia is widely used for medical record keeping and clinical research. These data contain artifacts, which are not relevant in clinical care, but may influence research results. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of different methods of filtering and processing artifacts in anesthesiology data on study findings in order to demonstrate the importance of proper artifact filtering. Methods The authors performed a systematic literature search to identify artifact filtering methods. Subsequently, these methods were applied to the data of anesthesia procedures with invasive blood pressure monitoring. Different hypotension measures were calculated (i.e., presence, duration, maximum deviation below threshold, and area under threshold) across different definitions (i.e., thresholds for mean arterial pressure of 50, 60, 65, 70 mmHg). These were then used to estimate the association with postoperative myocardial injury. Results After screening 3,585 papers, the authors included 38 papers that reported artifact filtering methods. The authors applied eight of these methods to the data of 2,988 anesthesia procedures. The occurrence of hypotension (defined with a threshold of 50 mmHg) varied from 24% with a median filter of seven measurements to 55% without an artifact filtering method, and between 76 and 90% with a threshold of 65 mmHg. Standardized odds ratios for presence of hypotension ranged from 1.16 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.26) to 1.24 (1.14 to 1.34) when hypotension was defined with a threshold of 50 mmHg. Similar variations in standardized odds ratios were found when applying methods to other hypotension measures and definitions. Conclusions The method of artifact filtering can have substantial effects on estimates of hypotension prevalence. The effect on the association between intraoperative hypotension and postoperative myocardial injury was relatively small. Nevertheless, the authors recommend that researchers carefully consider artifacts handling and report the methodology used. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

How to measure blood pressure using an arterial catheter: a systematic 5-step approach

“…Besides the abovementioned artifacts, patient movement during BP measurements or leaning against the patient's arm used for BP monitoring may falsify BP reading. In addition, substantial variations in BP reading between different measurement systems may occur because different monitor devices use different algorithms for data processing, data averaging, and artifact filtering [48].…”

A pragmatic methodology to extract anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record

“…19,20 One study found that up to over 30% of invasive blood pressure data could contain artifacts. 19 Therefore, data should be reviewed using visual analytics 3 as well as other approaches to assist artifact processing 21,22 in an effort to enhance data quality and mitigate the potential for inaccurate analyses as well as study interpretations. Manual data collection might also contain artifacts, and the advantage of the proposed method (or any data extraction from the EHR) might be to facilitate increased sampling of more data to facilitate further examination of the data characteristics such as its distribution, number of gaussians or outliers.…”

Screening for postoperative complications by continuous monitoring: protocol for the Biobeat-Postop cohort study

“…14 The rules selected to define artefacts may be updated according to experience and the literature. 15 The successive rules will be recorded in a register, and all recordings will be reviewed in the light of these new rules.…”