| Literature DB >> 28348637 |
Alejandro Santos-Díaz1, Raquel Valdés-Cristerna2, Enrique Vallejo3, Salvador Hernández4, Luis Jiménez-Ángeles5.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves functional classification among patients with left ventricle malfunction and ventricular electric conduction disorders. However, a high percentage of subjects under CRT (20%-30%) do not show any improvement. Nonetheless the presence of mechanical contraction dyssynchrony in ventricles has been proposed as an indicator of CRT response. This work proposes an automated classification model of severity in ventricular contraction dyssynchrony. The model includes clinical data such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), QRS and P-R intervals, and the 3 most significant factors extracted from the factor analysis of dynamic structures applied to a set of equilibrium radionuclide angiography images representing the mechanical behavior of cardiac contraction. A control group of 33 normal volunteers (28 ± 5 years, LVEF of 59.7% ± 5.8%) and a HF group of 42 subjects (53.12 ± 15.05 years, LVEF < 35%) were studied. The proposed classifiers had hit rates of 90%, 50%, and 80% to distinguish between absent, mild, and moderate-severe interventricular dyssynchrony, respectively. For intraventricular dyssynchrony, hit rates of 100%, 50%, and 90% were observed distinguishing between absent, mild, and moderate-severe, respectively. These results seem promising in using this automated method for clinical follow-up of patients undergoing CRT.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28348637 PMCID: PMC5350313 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3087407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1(a) depicts a ERNA study consisting of a k-images series, with frames having i × j pixels. (b) shows the time-activity curve extracted from a particular Region of Interest (ROI). (c) depicts a bidimensional array constructed from the image series. Figure adapted from [40].
Clinical features from studied population. (1) Patients without ischemic cardiomyopathy and QRS > 120 ms. (2) Patients without ischemic cardiomyopathy and QRS < 120 ms. (3) Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and QRS > 120 ms. (4) Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and QRS < 120 ms. Normality values reported in literature [43].
| Group | LVEF% | QRS [ms] | P-R [ms] | Number of subjects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 59.7 ± 5.8 | 80 | 140 | 33 |
| (1) Non-Isch. QRS > 120 ms | 22.1 ± 7.4 | 150.9 ± 30.1 | 178.18 ± 34.9 | 11 |
| (2) Non-Isch. QRS < 120 ms | 23.3 ± 8.2 | 88.6 ± 8.8 | 191 ± 23.8 | 10 |
| (3) Isch. QRS > 120 ms | 22.6 ± 10.6 | 139.0 ± 23.8 | 191 ± 23.8 | 10 |
| (4) Isch. QRS < 120 ms | 32.9 ± 9.3 | 95.0 ± 12.4 | 176.36 ± 43.9 | 11 |
LVEF: left ventricle ejection fraction.
Figure 2Features vectors configuration for SVM. (a) iLV dyssynchrony severity classification; (b) LV-RV dyssynchrony severity classification.
Figure 3Classification scheme for each type of dyssynchrony. x: feature vector (including LVEF, QRS, P-R, and FADS information). LVSM: linear support vector machine. WLSVM: weighted linear support vector machine.
Figure 4Distribution of the three most significant factors (F1, F2, and F3) computed from a normal and an abnormal ERNA set of images.
Contribution of first three most significant factors for control and HF groups.
| Group | Contribution (%) |
|---|---|
| Control | 99.77 ± 0.08 |
| HF | 99.78 ± 0.11 |
HF: heart failure.
Labels of cardiac dyssynchrony degree for all subjects computed as the mode of 3 nuclear cardiologists visual evaluations.
| Dyssynchrony | LV-RV | iLV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Number of subjects) | (Number of subjects) | ||
| Absent | 33 | 34 | |
| Present | Mild | 11 | 6 |
| Moderate/severe | 31 | 35 |
LV-RV: interventricular dyssynchrony and iLV: intraventricular dyssynchrony.
Mean accuracy of classifiers.
| Classes | LV-RV | iLV |
|---|---|---|
| Dyssynchrony | Dyssynchrony | |
| Absent/present | 96.10% ± 9.33% | 99.96% ± 0.82% |
| (LSVM) | ||
| Mild/moderate-severe | 78.17% ± 23.26% | 75.55% ± 23.98% |
| (WLSVM) |
LSVM: linear support vector machines and WLSVM: weighted linear support vector machine.
Classification results for testing set showed as percentage and number of subjects in parenthesis.
| Dyssynchrony | Absent | Mild | Moderate-severe | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LV-RV | 90% | 50% | 80% | 79.17% |
| (9/10) | (2/4) | (8/10) | (19/24) | |
| iLV | 100% | 50% | 90.91% | 91.67% |
| (11/11) | (1/2) | (10/11) | (22/24) |