Andrew Howe1, Omar J Escalona2, Rebecca Di Maio3, Bertrand Massot4, Nick A Cromie5, Karen M Darragh5, Jennifer Adgey5, David J McEneaney1. 1. Cardiovascular Research Unit, Craigavon Area Hospital, Portadown, UK. 2. Centre for Advanced Cardiovascular Research (CACR), University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK. Electronic address: oj.escalona@ulster.ac.uk. 3. Heartsine Technologies Ltd, Belfast, UK. 4. Institut des Nanotechnologies de Lyon, INSA-Lyon, Villeurbanne, France. 5. Belfast Heart Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Algorithms to predict shock success based on VF waveform metrics could significantly enhance resuscitation by optimising the timing of defibrillation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate robust methods of predicting defibrillation success in VF cardiac arrest patients, by using a support vector machine (SVM) optimisation approach. METHODS: Frequency-domain (AMSA, dominant frequency and median frequency) and time-domain (slope and RMS amplitude) VF waveform metrics were calculated in a 4.1Y window prior to defibrillation. Conventional prediction test validity of each waveform parameter was conducted and used AUC>0.6 as the criterion for inclusion as a corroborative attribute processed by the SVM classification model. The latter used a Gaussian radial-basis-function (RBF) kernel and the error penalty factor C was fixed to 1. A two-fold cross-validation resampling technique was employed. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients had 115 defibrillation instances. AMSA, slope and RMS waveform metrics performed test validation with AUC>0.6 for predicting termination of VF and return-to-organised rhythm. Predictive accuracy of the optimised SVM design for termination of VF was 81.9% (± 1.24 SD); positive and negative predictivity were respectively 84.3% (± 1.98 SD) and 77.4% (± 1.24 SD); sensitivity and specificity were 87.6% (± 2.69 SD) and 71.6% (± 9.38 SD) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AMSA, slope and RMS were the best VF waveform frequency-time parameters predictors of termination of VF according to test validity assessment. This a priori can be used for a simplified SVM optimised design that combines the predictive attributes of these VF waveform metrics for improved prediction accuracy and generalisation performance without requiring the definition of any threshold value on waveform metrics.
BACKGROUND: Algorithms to predict shock success based on VF waveform metrics could significantly enhance resuscitation by optimising the timing of defibrillation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate robust methods of predicting defibrillation success in VF cardiac arrestpatients, by using a support vector machine (SVM) optimisation approach. METHODS: Frequency-domain (AMSA, dominant frequency and median frequency) and time-domain (slope and RMS amplitude) VF waveform metrics were calculated in a 4.1Y window prior to defibrillation. Conventional prediction test validity of each waveform parameter was conducted and used AUC>0.6 as the criterion for inclusion as a corroborative attribute processed by the SVM classification model. The latter used a Gaussian radial-basis-function (RBF) kernel and the error penalty factor C was fixed to 1. A two-fold cross-validation resampling technique was employed. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients had 115 defibrillation instances. AMSA, slope and RMS waveform metrics performed test validation with AUC>0.6 for predicting termination of VF and return-to-organised rhythm. Predictive accuracy of the optimised SVM design for termination of VF was 81.9% (± 1.24 SD); positive and negative predictivity were respectively 84.3% (± 1.98 SD) and 77.4% (± 1.24 SD); sensitivity and specificity were 87.6% (± 2.69 SD) and 71.6% (± 9.38 SD) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AMSA, slope and RMS were the best VF waveform frequency-time parameters predictors of termination of VF according to test validity assessment. This a priori can be used for a simplified SVM optimised design that combines the predictive attributes of these VF waveform metrics for improved prediction accuracy and generalisation performance without requiring the definition of any threshold value on waveform metrics.
Authors: Jason Coult; Jennifer Blackwood; Lawrence Sherman; Thomas D Rea; Peter J Kudenchuk; Heemun Kwok Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-01
Authors: Beatriz Chicote; Unai Irusta; Elisabete Aramendi; Raúl Alcaraz; José Joaquín Rieta; Iraia Isasi; Daniel Alonso; María Del Mar Baqueriza; Karlos Ibarguren Journal: Entropy (Basel) Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 2.524
Authors: Dieter Bender; Ryan W Morgan; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Bingqing Zhang; Todd J Kilbaugh; Robert M Sutton; C Nataraj Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-12-14
Authors: Grace Brown; Samuel Conway; Mahmood Ahmad; Divine Adegbie; Nishil Patel; Vidushi Myneni; Mohammad Alradhawi; Niraj Kumar; Daniel R Obaid; Dominic Pimenta; Jonathan J H Bray Journal: Open Heart Date: 2022-07
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Katherine M Berg; Lars W Andersen; Bernd W Böttiger; Sofia Cacciola; Clifton W Callaway; Keith Couper; Tobias Cronberg; Sonia D'Arrigo; Charles D Deakin; Michael W Donnino; Ian R Drennan; Asger Granfeldt; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Mathias J Holmberg; Cindy H Hsu; Marlijn Kamps; Szymon Musiol; Kevin J Nation; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Brian J O'Neil; Quentin Otto; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Michael J A Parr; Joshua C Reynolds; Claudio Sandroni; Barnaby R Scholefield; Markus B Skrifvars; Tzong-Luen Wang; Wolfgang A Wetsch; Joyce Yeung; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Michelle Welsford; Mary Fran Hazinski; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jos Thannhauser; Joris Nas; Dennis J Rebergen; Sjoerd W Westra; Joep L R M Smeets; Niels Van Royen; Judith L Bonnes; Marc A Brouwer Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 5.501