Novel Analgesic Index for Postoperative Pain Assessment Based on a Photoplethysmographic Spectrogram and Convolutional Neural Network: Observational Study

Background: Although commercially available analgesic indices based on biosignal processing have been used to quantify nociception during general anesthesia, their performance is low in conscious patients. Therefore, there is a need to develop a new analgesic index with improved performance to quant...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of medical Internet research 2021-02, Vol.23 (2), p.e23920-e23920, Article 23920
Hauptverfasser: Choi, Byung-Moon, Yim, Ji Yeon, Shin, Hangsik, Noh, Gyujeong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Although commercially available analgesic indices based on biosignal processing have been used to quantify nociception during general anesthesia, their performance is low in conscious patients. Therefore, there is a need to develop a new analgesic index with improved performance to quantify postoperative pain in conscious patients. Objective: This study aimed to develop a new analgesic index using photoplethysmogram (PPG) spectrograms and a convolutional neural network (CNN) to objectively assess pain in conscious patients. Methods: PPGs were obtained from a group of surgical patients for 6 minutes both in the absence (preoperatively) and in the presence (postoperatively) of pain. Then, the PPG data of the latter 5 minutes were used for analysis. Based on the PPGs and a CNN, we developed a spectrogram-CNN index for pain assessment. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic curve was measured to evaluate the performance of the 2 indices. Results: PPGs from 100 patients were used to develop the spectrogram-CNN index. When there was pain, the mean (95% CI) spectrogram-CNN index value increased significantly-baseline: 28.5 (24.2-30.7) versus recovery area: 65.7 (60.5-68.3); P
ISSN:1438-8871
1439-4456
1438-8871
DOI:10.2196/23920