| Literature DB >> 24795878 |
Yushun Gong1, Tao Yu2, Bihua Chen1, Mi He1, Yongqin Li3.
Abstract
Current automated external defibrillators mandate interruptions of chest compression to avoid the effect of artifacts produced by CPR for reliable rhythm analyses. But even seconds of interruption of chest compression during CPR adversely affects the rate of restoration of spontaneous circulation and survival. Numerous digital signal processing techniques have been developed to remove the artifacts or interpret the corrupted ECG with promising result, but the performance is still inadequate, especially for nonshockable rhythms. In the present study, we suppressed the CPR artifacts with an enhanced adaptive filtering method. The performance of the method was evaluated by comparing the sensitivity and specificity for shockable rhythm detection before and after filtering the CPR corrupted ECG signals. The dataset comprised 283 segments of shockable and 280 segments of nonshockable ECG signals during CPR recorded from 22 adult pigs that experienced prolonged cardiac arrest. For the unfiltered signals, the sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% and 46.8%, respectively. After filtering, a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 96.0% were achieved. This animal trial demonstrated that the enhanced adaptive filtering method could significantly improve the detection of nonshockable rhythms without compromising the ability to detect a shockable rhythm during uninterrupted CPR.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24795878 PMCID: PMC3985144 DOI: 10.1155/2014/140438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Segments of ECG and reference signals during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). (a) Ventricular fibrillation with and without chest compression (CC). (b) Pulseless electrical activity (PEA) without and with CC. (c) Asystole (ASY) with and without CC. TTI: transthoracic impedance.
Figure 2Examples of signal selection for SNR estimation. The CPR corrupted signal was selected either from the latest 3 seconds of chest compression (CC) (a) or 1 second after the beginning of CC (b).
Figure 3Flowchart of the enhanced adaptive filtering method.
Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for pulseless electrical activity (PEA), ventricular fibrillation (VF), and asystole (ASY) before and after filtering.
| Unfiltered | Adaptive filter | High-pass filter | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medians (dB) (25/75 percentiles) | |||
| VF | −9.3 (−14.9/−3.6)△△ | 0.2 (−5.1/4.5)** | 0.1 (−4.2/0.9)** |
| PEA | −6.2 (−9.0/−1.12)△△ | 0.1 (−3.6/3.4)** | −2.0 (−7.4/−0.6)** |
| ASY | −21.2 (−24.2/−18.5)△△ | −12.7 (−15.0/−4.4)** | −7.1 (−10.7/−6.3)** |
| Range (dB) (min./max.) | |||
| VF | −26.1/9.6 | −18.2/20.0 | −19.7/20.4 |
| PEA | −16.0/9.9 | −7.6/19.9 | −14.0/14.7 |
| ASY | −31.6/−10.0 | −20.6/2.4 | −18.4/1.7 |
**Compared with unfiltered signal, P < 0.001; △△comparison among rhythm types, P < 0.001.
Figure 4Linear regression results between SNRo and CD for the full database and different types of underlying rhythms (ventricular fibrillation, VF; pulseless electric activity, PEA; asystole, ASY).
Sensitivity and specificity for the artifact-free ECG and CC corrupted signals before and after filtering.
| Rhythm | Number | Artifact-free | Unfiltered | Adaptive | High-pass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shockable (sensitivity) | VF | 283 | 99.0% | 99.3% | 93.3%** | 93.0%** |
|
| ||||||
| Nonshockable (specificity) | All | 280 | 98.2%** | 46.8% | 96.0%∗∗## | 80.4%** |
| PEA | 208 | 98.6%** | 53.9% | 97.6%∗∗## | 86.3%** | |
| ASY | 72 | 97.2%** | 26.4% | 91.7%∗∗## | 63.9%** | |
**Compared with unfiltered signals, P < 0.001 and ##compared with high-pass filter, P < 0.001. VF: ventricular fibrillation, PEA: pulseless electrical activity, and ASY: asystole.