Machine learning in anesthesiology:Detecting adverse events in clinical practice

The credibility of threshold-based alarms in anesthesia monitors is low and most of the warnings they produce are not informative. This study aims to show that Machine Learning techniques have a potential to generate meaningful alarms during general anesthesia without putting constraints on the type of procedure. Two distinct approaches were tested - Complication Detection and Anomaly Detection. The former is a generic supervised learning problem and for this a simple feed-forward Neural Network performed best. For the latter, we used an Encoder-Decoder Long Short-Term Memory architecture that does not require a large manually-labeled dataset. We show this approach to be more flexible and in the spirit of Explainable Artificial Intelligence, offering greater potential for future improvement

Noninvasive pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation to predict fluid responsiveness at multiple thresholds : a prospective observational study

Pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are dynamic preload variables that can be measured noninvasively to assess fluid responsiveness (FR) in anesthetized patients with mechanical ventilation. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of predicting FR according to the definition of FR, and assessment of inconclusive values of PPV and SVV around the cut-off value (the "grey zone") might improve individual FR prediction. We explored the ability of noninvasive volume clamp derived measurements of PPV and SVV to predict FR using the grey zone approach, and we assessed the influence of multiple thresholds on the predictive ability of the numerical definition of FR. Ninety patients undergoing general surgery were included in this prospective observational study and received a 500 mL fluid bolus as deemed clinically required by the attending anesthesiologist. A minimal relative increase in stroke volume index (a dagger SVI) was used to define FR with different thresholds from 10-25%. The PPV, SVV, and SVI were measured using the NexfinA (R) device that employs noninvasive volume clamp plethysmography. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve gradually increased for PPV / SVV with higher threshold values (from 0.818 / 0.760 at 10% a dagger SVI to 0.928 / 0.944 at 25% a dagger SVI). The grey zone limits of both PPV and SVV changed from 9-16% (PPV) and 5-13% (SVV) at the 10% a dagger SVI threshold to 18-21% (PPV) and 14-16% (SVV) at the 25% a dagger SVI threshold. Noninvasive PPV and SVV measurements allow an acceptable FR prediction, although the reliability of both variables is dependent on the intended increase in SVI, which improves substantially with concomitant smaller grey zones at higher a dagger SVI thresholds

Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~20% of COVID-19 deaths

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved.Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/ml; in plasma diluted 1:10) of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pneumonia but not in individuals with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega (100 pg/ml; in 1:10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients >80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1124 deceased patients (aged 20 days to 99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-beta. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected individuals from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of individuals carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals 80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-beta do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over 80s and total fatal COVID-19 cases.Peer reviewe

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every 5 y of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-β are found in ∼20% of deceased patients across age groups, and in ∼1% of individuals aged 4% of those >70 y old in the general population. With a sample of 1,261 unvaccinated deceased patients and 34,159 individuals of the general population sampled before the pandemic, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to noncarriers. The RRD associated with any combination of autoantibodies was higher in subjects under 70 y old. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRDs were 17.0 (95% CI: 11.7 to 24.7) and 5.8 (4.5 to 7.4) for individuals <70 y and ≥70 y old, respectively, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRDs were 188.3 (44.8 to 774.4) and 7.2 (5.0 to 10.3), respectively. In contrast, IFRs increased with age, ranging from 0.17% (0.12 to 0.31) for individuals <40 y old to 26.7% (20.3 to 35.2) for those ≥80 y old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84% (0.31 to 8.28) to 40.5% (27.82 to 61.20) for autoantibodies neutralizing both. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, especially when neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω. Remarkably, IFRs increase with age, whereas RRDs decrease with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs is a strong and common predictor of COVID-19 death.The Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; The Rockefeller University; the St. Giles Foundation; the NIH (Grants R01AI088364 and R01AI163029); the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards program (Grant UL1 TR001866); a Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures; Mercatus Center at George Mason University; the Yale Center for Mendelian Genomics and the Genome Sequencing Program Coordinating Center funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Grants UM1HG006504 and U24HG008956); the Yale High Performance Computing Center (Grant S10OD018521); the Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation; the Meyer Foundation; the JPB Foundation; the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the “Investments for the Future” program (Grant ANR-10-IAHU-01); the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Excellence (Grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID); the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM) (Grant EQU201903007798); the French Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral hepatitis (ANRS) Nord-Sud (Grant ANRS-COV05); the ANR GENVIR (Grant ANR-20-CE93-003), AABIFNCOV (Grant ANR-20-CO11-0001), CNSVIRGEN (Grant ANR-19-CE15-0009-01), and GenMIS-C (Grant ANR-21-COVR-0039) projects; the Square Foundation; Grandir–Fonds de solidarité pour l’Enfance; the Fondation du Souffle; the SCOR Corporate Foundation for Science; The French Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (Grant MESRI-COVID-19); Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), REACTing-INSERM; and the University Paris Cité. P. Bastard was supported by the FRM (Award EA20170638020). P. Bastard., J.R., and T.L.V. were supported by the MD-PhD program of the Imagine Institute (with the support of Fondation Bettencourt Schueller). Work at the Neurometabolic Disease lab received funding from Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) (Grant ACCI20-767) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 824110 (EASI Genomics). Work in the Laboratory of Virology and Infectious Disease was supported by the NIH (Grants P01AI138398-S1, 2U19AI111825, and R01AI091707-10S1), a George Mason University Fast Grant, and the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation. The Infanta Leonor University Hospital supported the research of the Department of Internal Medicine and Allergology. The French COVID Cohort study group was sponsored by INSERM and supported by the REACTing consortium and by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (Grant PHRC 20-0424). The Cov-Contact Cohort was supported by the REACTing consortium, the French Ministry of Health, and the European Commission (Grant RECOVER WP 6). This work was also partly supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIH (Grants ZIA AI001270 to L.D.N. and 1ZIAAI001265 to H.C.S.). This program is supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant ANR-10-LABX-69-01). K.K.’s group was supported by the Estonian Research Council, through Grants PRG117 and PRG377. R.H. was supported by an Al Jalila Foundation Seed Grant (Grant AJF202019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and a COVID-19 research grant (Grant CoV19-0307) from the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. S.G.T. is supported by Investigator and Program Grants awarded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and a University of New South Wales COVID Rapid Response Initiative Grant. L.I. reports funding from Regione Lombardia, Italy (project “Risposta immune in pazienti con COVID-19 e co-morbidità”). This research was partially supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grant COV20/0968). J.R.H. reports funding from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (Grant HHSO10201600031C). S.O. reports funding from Research Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (Grant JP20fk0108531). G.G. was supported by the ANR Flash COVID-19 program and SARS-CoV-2 Program of the Faculty of Medicine from Sorbonne University iCOVID programs. The 3C Study was conducted under a partnership agreement between INSERM, Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 University, and Sanofi-Aventis. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also supported by the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction générale de la Santé, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut de la Longévité, Conseils Régionaux of Aquitaine and Bourgogne, Fondation de France, and Ministry of Research–INSERM Program “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques.” S. Debette was supported by the University of Bordeaux Initiative of Excellence. P.K.G. reports funding from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, under Contract 75N91019D00024, Task Order 75N91021F00001. J.W. is supported by a Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) Fundamental Clinical Mandate (Grant 1833317N). Sample processing at IrsiCaixa was possible thanks to the crowdfunding initiative YoMeCorono. Work at Vall d’Hebron was also partly supported by research funding from Instituto de Salud Carlos III Grant PI17/00660 cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER). C.R.-G. and colleagues from the Canarian Health System Sequencing Hub were supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grants COV20_01333 and COV20_01334), the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (RTC-2017-6471-1; AEI/FEDER, European Union), Fundación DISA (Grants OA18/017 and OA20/024), and Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (Grants CGIEU0000219140 and “Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19”). T.H.M. was supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grants NNF20OC0064890 and NNF21OC0067157). C.M.B. is supported by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Health Professional-Investigator Award. P.Q.H. and L. Hammarström were funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Antibody Therapy Against Coronavirus consortium, Grant 101003650). Work at Y.-L.L.’s laboratory in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) was supported by the Society for the Relief of Disabled Children. MBBS/PhD study of D.L. in HKU was supported by the Croucher Foundation. J.L.F. was supported in part by the Evaluation-Orientation de la Coopération Scientifique (ECOS) Nord - Coopération Scientifique France-Colombie (ECOS-Nord/Columbian Administrative department of Science, Technology and Innovation [COLCIENCIAS]/Colombian Ministry of National Education [MEN]/Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Studies Abroad [ICETEX, Grant 806-2018] and Colciencias Contract 713-2016 [Code 111574455633]). A. Klocperk was, in part, supported by Grants NU20-05-00282 and NV18-05-00162 issued by the Czech Health Research Council and Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. L.P. was funded by Program Project COVID-19 OSR-UniSR and Ministero della Salute (Grant COVID-2020-12371617). I.M. is a Senior Clinical Investigator at the Research Foundation–Flanders and is supported by the CSL Behring Chair of Primary Immunodeficiencies (PID); by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven C1 Grant C16/18/007; by a Flanders Institute for Biotechnology-Grand Challenges - PID grant; by the FWO Grants G0C8517N, G0B5120N, and G0E8420N; and by the Jeffrey Modell Foundation. I.M. has received funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement 948959). E.A. received funding from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (Grant INTERFLU 1574). M. Vidigal received funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation (Grant 2020/09702-1) and JBS SA (Grant 69004). The NH-COVAIR study group consortium was supported by a grant from the Meath Foundation.Peer reviewe

Integration of Visual Metaphors in an Anesthesia Monitor

Inleiding Anesthesisten streven er tijdens een operatie naar om de gezondheid van de patiënt stabiel te houden. Ze houden de verschillende patiëntvariabelen in de gaten en op basis van hun waarnemingen beslissen ze welke behandeling de patiënt nodig heeft. Uit de huidige anesthesiepraktijk blijkt dat een grote hoeveelheid van de anesthesiegerelateerde ongelukken te wijten is aan menselijke fouten in het waarnemen van de monitoren (Cooper et al. 1984). Dit onderzoek keek naar de invloed van visuele metaforen in de patiëntmonitor op het kijkgedrag van de anesthesist. Methode Presentatie van een nieuw type patiëntmonitor aan anesthesisten en anesthesisten in opleiding. In deze nieuwe monitor werd patiëntinformatie visueel gerepresenteerd in de vorm van gekleurde balken. Hoogte en breedte waren hierbij een afspiegeling van de waarde van de desbetreffende variabele. Elke balk zat in een frame die de gewenste waarde van deze variabele voor de patiënt in rust weergeeft. Deze visualisaties zijn metaforen voor de getallen die normaal worden weergegeven in een patiëntmonitor. Metaforen zijn visuele representaties van variabelen en kunnen de anesthesist dus voorzien van extra informatie over de status van de patiënt. De hypothese in dit onderzoek was dat een patiëntmonitor met metaforische patiëntinformatie leidt tot een snellere herkenningstijd van complicaties in een waarnemingstaak. In een statische waarnemingstaak werden screenshots van de monitor aangeboden aan anesthesisten en anesthesisten in opleiding. De screenshots vertoonden het monitorbeeld dat men in de praktijk zou zien bij een anesthesiegerelateerde complicatie. De proefpersonen gaven een respons als ze de aangeboden complicatie herkenden. Vervolgens moesten de proefpersonen een keuze selecteren voor de eerste behandelingsactie en de diagnose. Zij kregen vijf verschillende types monitoren aangeboden: traditioneel, metaforisch (MAI), metaforisch met trendpijlen (tMAI) en twee gecombineerde monitoren: traditioneel en MAI, traditioneel en tMAI. Resultaten De resultaten gaven geen significante verlaging van de responstijden voor de metaforische monitor vergeleken met de traditionele monitor. Er was ook geen significant verschil in responstijden tussen de trend en geen-trend monitoren. Tussen de gecombineerde monitoren en de enkele monitoren kwam ook geen significant verschil in responstijd naar voren. De proefpersonen identificeerden ruim 40% van de complicaties niet correct. Conclusie Uit het de experimenten blijkt dat anesthesisten geen snellere responstijd vertonen in de condities met metaforische monitors vergeleken met de traditionele monitor. De grote hoeveelheid fouten kan duiden op een te versimplificeerde weergave van de werkelijkheid in de experimenten. Er is vervolgonderzoek noodzakelijk naar de invloed van metaforische monitoren in minder gecompliceerde taken en een meer dynamische experimentele setting.

Implementation of a Bayesian based advisory tool for target-controlled infusion of propofol using qCON as control variable

This single blinded randomized controlled trial aims to assess whether the application of a Bayesian-adjusted CePROP (effect-site of propofol) advisory tool leads towards a more stringent control of the cerebral drug effect during anaesthesia, using qCON as control variable. 100 patients scheduled for elective surgery were included and randomized into a control or intervention group (1:1 ratio). In the intervention group the advisory screen was made available to the clinician, whereas it was blinded in the control group. The settings of the target-controlled infusion pumps could be adjusted at any time by the clinician. Cerebral drug effect was quantified using processed EEG (CONOX monitor, Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany). The time of qCON between the desired range (35–55) during anaesthesia maintenance was defined as our primary end point. Induction parameters and recovery times were considered secondary end points and coefficient of variance of qCON and CePROP was calculated in order to survey the extent of control towards the mean of the population. The desired range of qCON between 35 and 55 was maintained in 84% vs. 90% (p = 0.15) of the case time in the control versus intervention group, respectively. Secondary endpoints showed similar results in both groups. The coefficient of variation for CePROP was higher in the intervention group. The application of the Bayesian-based CePROP advisory system in this trial did not result in a different time of qCON between 35 and 55 (84 [21] vs. 90 [18] percent of the case time). Significant differences between groups were hard to establish, most likely due to a very high performance level in the control group. More extensive control efforts were found in the intervention group. We believe that this advisory tool could be a useful educational tool for novices to titrate propofol effect-site concentrations.</p