Effects of individualized electrical impedance tomography and image reconstruction settings upon the assessment of regional ventilation distribution: Comparison to 4-dimensional computed tomography in a porcine model

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a promising imaging technique for bedside monitoring of lung function. It is easily applicable, cheap and requires no ionizing radiation, but clinical interpretation of EIT-images is still not standardized. One of the reasons for this is the ill-posed nature of EIT, allowing a range of possible images to be produced–rather than a single explicit solution. Thus, to further advance the EIT technology for clinical application, thorough examinations of EIT-image reconstruction settings–i.e., mathematical parameters and addition of a priori (e.g., anatomical) information–is essential. In the present work, regional ventilation distribution profiles derived from different EIT finite-element reconstruction models and settings (for GREIT and Gauss Newton) were compared to regional aeration profiles assessed by the gold-standard of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) by calculating the root mean squared error (RMSE). Specifically, non-individualized reconstruction models (based on circular and averaged thoracic contours) and individualized reconstruction models (based on true thoracic contours) were compared. Our results suggest that GREIT with noise figure of 0.15 and non-uniform background works best for the assessment of regional ventilation distribution by EIT, as verified versus 4DCT. Furthermore, the RMSE of anteroposterior ventilation profiles decreased from 2.53±0.62% to 1.67±0.49% while correlation increased from 0.77 to 0.89 after embedding anatomical information into the reconstruction models. In conclusion, the present work reveals that anatomically enhanced EIT-image reconstruction is superior to non-individualized reconstruction models, but further investigations in humans, so as to standardize reconstruction settings, is warranted.

[1]  Andy Adler,et al.  A comparison framework for temporal image reconstructions in electrical impedance tomography , 2015, Physiological measurement.

[2]  Eugenijus Kaniusas,et al.  Evaluation of reconstruction parameters of electrical impedance tomography on aorta detection during saline bolus injection , 2016 .

[3]  A Adler,et al.  Objective selection of hyperparameter for EIT , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[4]  C. Putensen,et al.  Meta-analysis: Ventilation Strategies and Outcomes of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Acute Lung Injury , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  Arto Voutilainen,et al.  State estimation and inverse problems in electrical impedance tomography : observability , convergence and regularization , 2015 .

[6]  Andy Adler,et al.  2.5D finite element method for electrical impedance tomography considering the complete electrode model , 2012, 2012 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE).

[7]  William R B Lionheart,et al.  GREIT: a unified approach to 2D linear EIT reconstruction of lung images , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[8]  Andy Adler,et al.  Choice of reconstructed tissue properties affects interpretation of lung EIT images , 2014, Physiological measurement.

[9]  Guillermo Bugedo,et al.  Anatomical and functional intrapulmonary shunt in acute respiratory distress syndrome* , 2008, Critical care medicine.

[10]  Eric A Hoffman,et al.  Quantification of ventilation distribution in regional lung injury by electrical impedance tomography and xenon computed tomography , 2013, Physiological measurement.

[11]  Matthias Kott,et al.  Functional Regions of Interest in Electrical Impedance Tomography: A Secondary Analysis of Two Clinical Studies , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  William R B Lionheart EIT reconstruction algorithms: pitfalls, challenges and recent developments. , 2004, Physiological measurement.

[13]  A. Haese*,et al.  Perioperative assessment of regional ventilation during changing body positions and ventilation conditions by electrical impedance tomography. , 2016, British journal of anaesthesia.

[14]  Camille Gomez-Laberge,et al.  A Unified Approach for EIT Imaging of Regional Overdistension and Atelectasis in Acute Lung Injury , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Joachim Schöberl,et al.  NETGEN An advancing front 2D/3D-mesh generator based on abstract rules , 1997 .

[16]  Massimo Cressoni,et al.  Limits of normality of quantitative thoracic CT analysis , 2011, Critical Care.

[17]  Renato Seiji Tavares,et al.  Influence of current injection pattern and electric potential measurement strategies in electrical impedance tomography , 2017 .

[18]  Nicholas Ayache,et al.  Non-parametric Diffeomorphic Image Registration with the Demons Algorithm , 2007, MICCAI.

[19]  Andy Adler,et al.  Impact of Model Shape Mismatch on Reconstruction Quality in Electrical Impedance Tomography , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  Steffen Leonhardt,et al.  Electrical impedance tomography: the holy grail of ventilation and perfusion monitoring? , 2012, Intensive Care Medicine.

[21]  Zhanqi Zhao,et al.  Evaluation of an electrical impedance tomography-based global inhomogeneity index for pulmonary ventilation distribution , 2009, Intensive Care Medicine.

[22]  Andy Adler,et al.  Functional Validation and Comparison Framework for EIT Lung Imaging , 2014, PloS one.

[23]  J. G. Webster,et al.  Finite-element method in electrical impedance tomography , 1994, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[24]  Tom Vercauteren,et al.  Diffeomorphic demons: Efficient non-parametric image registration , 2009, NeuroImage.

[25]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[26]  William R B Lionheart,et al.  The importance of shape : thorax models for GREIT , 2011 .

[27]  Andy Adler,et al.  Uniform background assumption produces misleading lung EIT images , 2013, Physiological measurement.

[28]  José Hinz,et al.  Regional ventilation by electrical impedance tomography: a comparison with ventilation scintigraphy in pigs. , 2003, Chest.

[29]  Jennifer L. Mueller,et al.  A D-BAR ALGORITHM WITH A PRIORI INFORMATION FOR 2-D ELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE TOMOGRAPHY , 2015, 1505.01196.

[30]  Göran Hedenstierna,et al.  Electrical impedance tomography compared with thoracic computed tomography during a slow inflation maneuver in experimental models of lung injury* , 2008, Critical care medicine.

[31]  John H Arnold,et al.  Differences in regional pulmonary pressure–impedance curves before and after lung injury assessed with a novel algorithm , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[32]  Jordi Mancebo,et al.  PEEP-induced changes in lung volume in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Two methods to estimate alveolar recruitment , 2011, Intensive Care Medicine.

[33]  William R B Lionheart,et al.  Uses and abuses of EIDORS: an extensible software base for EIT , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[34]  I Frerichs,et al.  Electrical impedance tomography compared to positron emission tomography for the measurement of regional lung ventilation: an experimental study , 2009, Critical care.

[35]  P Nopp,et al.  Dielectric properties of lung tissue as a function of air content. , 1993, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  Steffen Leonhardt,et al.  Tidal recruitment assessed by electrical impedance tomography and computed tomography in a porcine model of lung injury* , 2012, Critical care medicine.