| Literature DB >> 30767136 |
Joo Heung Yoon1,2,3, Lidan Mu4, Lujie Chen4, Artur Dubrawski4, Marilyn Hravnak5, Michael R Pinsky6, Gilles Clermont6.
Abstract
Tachycardia is a strong though non-specific marker of cardiovascular stress that proceeds hemodynamic instability. We designed a predictive model of tachycardia using multi-granular intensive care unit (ICU) data by creating a risk score and dynamic trajectory. A subset of clinical and numerical signals were extracted from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II database. A tachycardia episode was defined as heart rate ≥ 130/min lasting for ≥ 5 min, with ≥ 10% density. Regularized logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) classifiers were trained to create a risk score for upcoming tachycardia. Three different risk score models were compared for tachycardia and control (non-tachycardia) groups. Risk trajectory was generated from time windows moving away at 1 min increments from the tachycardia episode. Trajectories were computed over 3 hours leading up to the episode for three different models. From 2809 subjects, 787 tachycardia episodes and 707 control periods were identified. Patients with tachycardia had increased vasopressor support, longer ICU stay, and increased ICU mortality than controls. In model evaluation, RF was slightly superior to LR, which accuracy ranged from 0.847 to 0.782, with area under the curve from 0.921 to 0.842. Risk trajectory analysis showed average risks for tachycardia group evolved to 0.78 prior to the tachycardia episodes, while control group risks remained < 0.3. Among the three models, the internal control model demonstrated evolving trajectory approximately 75 min before tachycardia episode. Clinically relevant tachycardia episodes can be predicted from vital sign time series using machine learning algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: Critical Care; Intensive care unit; Machine learning; Prediction; Tachycardia
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30767136 PMCID: PMC6823304 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00277-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Monit Comput ISSN: 1387-1307 Impact factor: 2.502
Fig. 1Operational definition of target tachycardia episode. a. A pseudocode for selecting target tachycardia episode by operational definition. b Schematic illustration of tachycardia episodes by rate, length, and interval. The time between events less than 30 min were combined to form an episode. c An illustration for the concept of density (‘duty cycle’) with two examples of heart rate time series. Red dotted lines indicate the threshold for tachycardia for each episode, with shaded area on the bottom graph shows the time period satisfying the operational definition of a tachycardia episode. Note while upper graph showed much larger number of episodes, lower graph revealed a single, but much dense episode of continued tachycardia. The subject in the bottom panel eventually expired in the ICU
Fig. 2The three models for tachycardia episodes with corresponding control groups
Fig. 3Ten-fold cross validation method for training and test models
Fig. 4Clinical relevance of target rate for tachycardia episode. a Selection of rate thresholds for target tachycardia episode. With using heart rate (HR) 110/min, 120/min, and 130/min cut-off, different adverse clinical outcome variables including the use of norepinephrine (%), ICU length of stay (days), and ICU mortality (%). Non-tachycardia comprises control group which had no tachycardia episode during ICU stay (n = 2376). b. Clinical adverse outcomes for tachycardia subjects who met operational definition ‘Tachycardia’ indicates subjects met operational definition of tachycardia during the ICU stay (n = 235). ‘Non-tachycardia analyzed’ subjects are control group without tachycardia episode (rate threshold of HR < 130) during the ICU stay (n = 2572). ‘All mimic2 without tachycardia’ stands for the rest of MIMIC2 patient (n = 39397). When appropriate, mean and the standard error (SEM) was produced with error bars. c Comparison of clinically important abrupt onset of non-sinus tachycardia episodes with other overall tachycardia episodes as well as non-tachycardia MIMIC 2 dataset
Demographic characteristics for tachycardia and control group subjects
| Variables | Tachycardia group | Control group | p-values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 72 ± 31.8 | 65.7 ± 27.3 | 0.02 |
| Gender (male) | 52.5% | 59.5% | 0.58 |
| Body Mass Index | 28.6 ± 8.6 | 29.1 ± 8.8 | 0.57 |
| First SOFA score | 6.4 ± 4.6 | 5.8 ± 4.3 | 0.16 |
| Maximum SOFA score | 7.7 ± 4.8 | 6.9 ± 4.2 | 0.38 |
| Elixhauser score | 11.34 ± 7.66 | 9.43 ± 7.89 | < 0.01 |
| First ICU types | |||
| Cardiac | 95 (39.6%) | 106 (44.2%) | 0.31 |
| Cardiothoracic | 105 (43.8%) | 98 (40.8%) | 0.58 |
| Medical | 16 (6.7%) | 18 (7.5%) | 0.72 |
| Others | 23 (9.6%) | 18 (7.5%) | 0.51 |
| ICU length of stay (days) | 7.9 ± 9.9 | 5.9 ± 9.26 | 0.02 |
| ICU mortality (%) | 15.8 | 12.9 | 0.43 |
List of predictors for tachycardia episode
| Feature abbreviation | Feature name | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
mean_abpdias mean_abpmean mean_abpsys mean_hr mean_rr mean_spo2 | Mean values for vital signs | |
sd_hr sd_rr sd_spo2 | Standard deviations for vital signs | |
reg_ abpdias reg _abpmean reg _abpsys reg _hr reg _rr reg _spo2 | Coefficient of first-order regression | Degree of association between the two predictor variables |
fft_hr fft_rr fft_spo2 | Fast Fourier transformation | Converts a signal from its original domain to a representation in the frequency domain |
acs_hr acs_rr acs_spo2 | Autocorrelation | Measures the degree of similarity between a given time series and its lagged version over continuous time periods |
aes_hr aes_rr aes_spo2 ses_hr ses_rr ses_spo2 | Approximate entropy Sample entropy | Reflects the likelihood that similar patterns of observation will not be followed by additional similar observations |
density_hr density _rr density _spo2 | Density of the records | The amount of data points available during the given time interval |
last_5min_mean_hr last_5min_mean_rr last_5min_mean_spo2 | Mean value in the last 5 min | Considering the rapidly deteriorating conditions during last 5 or 10 min prior to the instability, short-term means and coefficients were separately assessed and applied |
last_5min_reg_hr last_5min_reg_rr last_5min_reg_spo2 | Coefficients of the first-order regression in the last 5 min | |
last_10min_mean_hr last_10min_mean_rr last_10min_mean_spo2 | Mean value in the last 10 min | |
last_10min_reg_hr last_10min_reg_rr last_10min_reg_spo2 | Coefficients of the first-order regression in the last 10 min |
Abpdias diastolic arterial blood pressure; abpmean mean arterial pressure; abpsys systolic arterial blood pressure; acs autocorrelation; aes approximate entropy; fft fast Fourier transformation; hr heart rate; min minutes; reg regression coefficient; rr respiratory rate; sd standard deviation; ses sample entropy; spo2 oxygen saturation
Fig. 5Comparison of the performance of the algorithm. Random Forest (RF, left plot) and Logistic Regression (LR, right plot) with L1 regularization term were tested with using 10-fold cross-validation method. RF slightly outperformed LR with L1 regularization, with overall higher accuracy and larger area under the curve (AUC)
Top 15 features for each time period used for different prediction horizons (minutes)
| Size of prediction horizon (minutes) | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Features | aes_hr fft_hr last_10min_mean_hr last_10min_reg_hr last_5min_mean_hr | fft_hr fft_rr last_10min_mean_hr last_5min_mean_rr mean_hr | aes_hr fft_hr fft_rr last_10min_mean_hr last_10min_reg_hr | aes_hr fft_hr last_10min_mean_hr last_10min_mean_rr last_5min_mean_hr |
last_5min_reg_hr mean_hr mean_rr sd_hr ses_hr | mean_rr sd_hr ses_hr aes_spo2 last_5min_mean_hr | last_5min_mean_hr last_5min_mean_rr mean_hr sd_hr ses_hr | last_5min_mean_rr mean_hr sd_hr ses_hr ses_spo2 | |
reg_hr last_10min_mean_rr fft_rr last_10min_reg_spo2 last_5min_mean_rr | aes_hr mean_abpmean sd_spo2 last_10min_mean_rr reg_hr | mean_abpmean reg_hr mean_rr last_5min_reg_hr last_10min_mean_rr | mean_rr fft_rr reg_rr last_10min_reg_hr last_5min_reg_hr |
Abpmean mean arterial pressure; aes approximate entropy; fft fast Fourier transformation; hr heart rate; min minutes; reg regression coefficient; rr respiratory rate; sd standard deviation; ses sample entropy; spo2 oxygen saturation
Fig. 6Risk score trajectories for the three models of tachycardia group and control group comparison. a Evolving risks for any tachycardia episode in the future. Number of cases = 787, number of controls = 707. b Evolving risks for the first tachycardia episode in the future. Number of cases = 240, number of controls = 240. c Life score to detect the risk within the same subject prior to the first episode. Number of cases = 235