Jason Coult1,2, Jennifer Blackwood2,3, Lawrence Sherman1,2,4, Thomas D Rea2,3,4, Peter J Kudenchuk2,3,5, Heemun Kwok2,6. 1. Department of Bioengineering (J.C., L.S.), University of Washington, Seattle. 2. Center for Progress in Resuscitation (J.C., J.B., L.S., T.D.R., P.J.K., H.K.), University of Washington, Seattle. 3. King County Emergency Medical Services, Seattle King County Department of Public Health, WA (J.B., T.D.R., P.J.K.). 4. Department of Medicine (L.S., T.D.R.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. 5. Division of Cardiology (P.J.K.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine (H.K.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative measures of the ventricular fibrillation (VF) ECG waveform can assess myocardial physiology and predict cardiac arrest outcomes, making these measures a candidate to help guide resuscitation. Chest compressions are typically paused for waveform measure calculation because compressions cause ECG artifact. However, such pauses contradict resuscitation guideline recommendations to minimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruptions. We evaluated a comprehensive group of VF measures with and without ongoing compressions to determine their performance under both conditions for predicting functionally-intact survival, the study's primary outcome. METHODS: Five-second VF ECG segments were collected with and without chest compressions before 2755 defibrillation shocks from 1151 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Twenty-four individual measures and 3 combination measures were implemented. Measures were optimized to predict functionally-intact survival (Cerebral Performance Category score ≤2) using 460 training cases, and their performance evaluated using 691 independent test cases. RESULTS: Measures predicted functionally-intact survival on test data with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.56 to 0.75 (median, 0.73) without chest compressions and from 0.53 to 0.75 (median, 0.69) with compressions ( P<0.001 for difference). Of all measures evaluated, the support vector machine model ranked highest both without chest compressions (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.78) and with compressions (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78; P=0.75 for difference). CONCLUSIONS: VF waveform measures predict functionally-intact survival when calculated during chest compressions, but prognostic performance is generally reduced compared with compression-free analysis. However, support vector machine models exhibited similar performance with and without compressions while also achieving the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Such machine learning models may, therefore, offer means to guide resuscitation during uninterrupted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative measures of the ventricular fibrillation (VF) ECG waveform can assess myocardial physiology and predict cardiac arrest outcomes, making these measures a candidate to help guide resuscitation. Chest compressions are typically paused for waveform measure calculation because compressions cause ECG artifact. However, such pauses contradict resuscitation guideline recommendations to minimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruptions. We evaluated a comprehensive group of VF measures with and without ongoing compressions to determine their performance under both conditions for predicting functionally-intact survival, the study's primary outcome. METHODS: Five-second VF ECG segments were collected with and without chest compressions before 2755 defibrillation shocks from 1151 out-of-hospital cardiac arrestpatients. Twenty-four individual measures and 3 combination measures were implemented. Measures were optimized to predict functionally-intact survival (Cerebral Performance Category score ≤2) using 460 training cases, and their performance evaluated using 691 independent test cases. RESULTS: Measures predicted functionally-intact survival on test data with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.56 to 0.75 (median, 0.73) without chest compressions and from 0.53 to 0.75 (median, 0.69) with compressions ( P<0.001 for difference). Of all measures evaluated, the support vector machine model ranked highest both without chest compressions (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.78) and with compressions (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78; P=0.75 for difference). CONCLUSIONS:VF waveform measures predict functionally-intact survival when calculated during chest compressions, but prognostic performance is generally reduced compared with compression-free analysis. However, support vector machine models exhibited similar performance with and without compressions while also achieving the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Such machine learning models may, therefore, offer means to guide resuscitation during uninterrupted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Entities:
Keywords:
artifact; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; cause of death; support vector machine; ventricular fibrillation
Authors: Jason Coult; Jennifer Blackwood; Thomas D Rea; Peter J Kudenchuk; Heemun Kwok Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 5.772
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: Jonathan R Hanisch; Catherine R Counts; Andrew J Latimer; Thomas D Rea; Lihua Yin; Michael R Sayre Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.501
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
Authors: Brooke Bessen; Jason Coult; Jennifer Blackwood; Cindy H Hsu; Peter Kudenchuk; Thomas Rea; Heemun Kwok Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 5.501