| Literature DB >> 33023615 |
Joon-Myoung Kwon1,2,3,4, Kyung-Hee Kim5, Ki-Hyun Jeon6,5, Soo Youn Lee6,5, Jinsik Park7,5, Byung-Hee Oh5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest is a major burden in health care. Although several track-and-trigger systems are used to predict cardiac arrest, they often have unsatisfactory performances. We hypothesized that a deep-learning-based artificial intelligence algorithm (DLA) could effectively predict cardiac arrest using electrocardiography (ECG). We developed and validated a DLA for predicting cardiac arrest using ECG.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Deep learning; Electrocardiography; Heart arrest; Hospital rapid response team
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33023615 PMCID: PMC7541213 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-020-00791-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Fig. 1Architecture of deep-learning-based algorithm for predicting cardiac arrest. BN denotes batch normalization, Conv convolutional layer, ECG electrocardiography, and FC fully connected layer
Fig. 2Study flowchart
Baseline characteristics
| Variables | Non-event patients | Cardiac arrest patients | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male, n (%) | 13,072 (53.1) | 558 (52.9) | 0.888 |
| Age, year (mean (sd)) | 60.67 (16.69) | 72.37 (13.24) | < 0.001 |
| Admission to ICU, n (%) | 279 (1.1) | 638 (60.5) | < 0.001 |
| Emergent admission, n (%) | 10,491 (42.6) | 800 (75.9) | < 0.001 |
| Admission division, n (%) | < 0.001 | ||
| Cardiovascular | 13,836 (56.2) | 760 (72.1) | |
| Cerebrovasclar | 2474 (10.0) | 142 (13.5) | |
| Respiratory disease | 810 (3.3) | 63 (6.0) | |
| Other internal medicines | 2934 (11.9) | 64 (6.1) | |
| Major surgery | 4306 (17.5) | 18 (1.7) | |
| Others | 258 (1.0) | 7 (0.7) | |
| Length of stay, day (mean (sd)) | 9.34 (15.20) | 54.35 (114.36) | < 0.001 |
| Heart rate, bpm (mean (sd)) | 74.57 (17.76) | 93.43 (27.91) | < 0.001 |
| PR interval, msec (mean (sd)) | 172.03 (31.72) | 170.65 (41.28) | 0.262 |
| QT interval, msec (mean (sd)) | 406.41 (47.17) | 393.70 (71.65) | < 0.001 |
| QTc (mean (sd)) | 445.79 (38.02) | 474.27 (46.81) | < 0.001 |
| QRS duration, msec (mean (sd)) | 97.25 (19.25) | 107.62 (28.58) | < 0.001 |
| P wave axis (mean (sd)) | 43.20 (31.26) | 44.89 (47.43) | 0.190 |
| R wave axis (mean (sd)) | 36.14 (46.52) | 39.15 (75.26) | 0.046 |
| T wave axis (mean (sd)) | 51.17 (59.34) | 86.39 (92.21) | < 0.001 |
Fig. 3Performances of artificial intelligence algorithms for predicting cardiac arrest. AUC denotes area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, CI confidence interval, DLA deep-learning based artificial intelligence algorithm, NPV negative predictive value, PPV positive predictive value, and ROC receiver operating characteristic curve
Fig. 4Cumulative hazard of deterioration event in patients who had no cardiac arrest within 24 h. DLA denotes deep-learning based artificial intelligence algorithm, ECG electrocardiography, and ICU intensive care unit. The cutoff point used for dividing the risk groups was selected when the overall sensitivity was 90% in the development dataset. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard for the delayed cardiac arrest and the deterioration events
Fig. 5Electrocardiography and sensitivity map of patient with cardiac arrest. This is electrocardiography of patient who was 62 years old and was occurred cardiac arrest in external validation hospital. The cardiac arrest occurred 18 min after acquiring electrocardiography. The deep learning based artificial intelligence algorithm predicted cardiac arrest in this patient with a value of 0.685897, which was 32.7 times the cut-off value of sensitivity 90% in development dataset