Article

Impact of Model Shape Mismatch on Reconstruction Quality in Electrical Impedance Tomography

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 05/2012; 31(9):1754-60. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2012.2200904
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a low-cost, noninvasive and radiation free medical imaging modality for monitoring ventilation distribution in the lung. Although such information could be invaluable in preventing ventilator-induced lung injury in mechanically ventilated patients, clinical application of EIT is hindered by difficulties in interpreting the resulting images. One source of this difficulty is the frequent use of simple shapes which do not correspond to the anatomy to reconstruct EIT images. The mismatch between the true body shape and the one used for reconstruction is known to introduce errors, which to date have not been properly characterized. In the present study we, therefore, seek to 1) characterize and quantify the errors resulting from a reconstruction shape mismatch for a number of popular EIT reconstruction algorithms and 2) develop recommendations on the tolerated amount of mismatch for each algorithm. Using real and simulated data, we analyze the performance of four EIT reconstruction algorithms under different degrees of shape mismatch. Results suggest that while slight shape mismatch is well tolerated by all algorithms, using a circular shape severely degrades their performance.

0 Followers
 · 
104 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Analysis methods of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) images based on different reconstruction algorithms were examined. EIT measurements were performed on eight mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. A maneuver with step increase of airway pressure was performed. EIT raw data were reconstructed offline with (1) filtered back-projection (BP); (2) the Dräger algorithm based on linearized Newton–Raphson (DR); (3) the GREIT (Graz consensus reconstruction algorithm for EIT) reconstruction algorithm with a circular forward model (GRC) and (4) GREIT with individual thorax geometry (GRT). Individual thorax contours were automatically determined from the routine computed tomography images. Five indices were calculated on the resulting EIT images respectively: (a) the ratio between tidal and deep inflation impedance changes; (b) tidal impedance changes in the right and left lungs; (c) center of gravity; (d) the global inhomogeneity index and (e) ventilation delay at mid-dorsal regions. No significant differences were found in all examined indices among the four reconstruction algorithms (p > 0.2, Kruskal–Wallis test). The examined algorithms used for EIT image reconstruction do not influence the selected indices derived from the EIT image analysis. Indices that validated for images with one reconstruction algorithm are also valid for other reconstruction algorithms.
    Physiological Measurement 05/2014; 35(6):1083. DOI:10.1088/0967-3334/35/6/1083 · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) estimates an image of change in electrical properties within a body from stimulations and measurements at surface electrodes. There is significant interest in EIT as a tool to monitor and guide ventilation therapy in mechanically ventilated patients. In lung EIT, the EIT inverse problem is commonly linearized and only changes in electrical properties are reconstructed. Early algorithms reconstructed changes in resistivity, while most recent work using the finite element method reconstructs conductivity. Recently, we demonstrated that EIT images of ventilation can be misleading if the electrical contrasts within the thorax are not taken into account during the image reconstruction process. In this paper, we explore the effect of the choice of the reconstructed electrical properties (resistivity or conductivity) on the resulting EIT images. We show in simulation and experimental data that EIT images reconstructed with the same algorithm but with different parametrizations lead to large and clinically significant differences in the resulting images, which persist even after attempts to eliminate the impact of the parameter choice by recovering volume changes from the EIT images. Since there is no consensus among the most popular reconstruction algorithms and devices regarding the parametrization, this finding has implications for potential clinical use of EIT. We propose a program of research to develop reconstruction techniques that account for both the relationship between air volume and electrical properties of the lung and artefacts introduced by the linearization.
    Physiological Measurement 05/2014; 35(6):1035. DOI:10.1088/0967-3334/35/6/1035 · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is an emerging clinical tool for monitoring ventilation distribution in mechanically ventilated patients, for which many image reconstruction algorithms have been suggested. We propose an experimental framework to assess such algorithms with respect to their ability to correctly represent well-defined physiological changes. We defined a set of clinically relevant ventilation conditions and induced them experimentally in 8 pigs by controlling three ventilator settings (tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure and the fraction of inspired oxygen). In this way, large and discrete shifts in global and regional lung air content were elicited. Methods We use the framework to compare twelve 2D EIT reconstruction algorithms, including backprojection (the original and still most frequently used algorithm), GREIT (a more recent consensus algorithm for lung imaging), truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD), several variants of the one-step Gauss-Newton approach and two iterative algorithms. We consider the effects of using a 3D finite element model, assuming non-uniform background conductivity, noise modeling, reconstructing for electrode movement, total variation (TV) reconstruction, robust error norms, smoothing priors, and using difference vs. normalized difference data. Results and Conclusions Our results indicate that, while variation in appearance of images reconstructed from the same data is not negligible, clinically relevant parameters do not vary considerably among the advanced algorithms. Among the analysed algorithms, several advanced algorithms perform well, while some others are significantly worse. Given its vintage and ad-hoc formulation backprojection works surprisingly well, supporting the validity of previous studies in lung EIT.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e103045. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0103045 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
3 Downloads
Available from