| Literature DB >> 34072304 |
Manish Sharma1, Jaypal Singh Rajput1, Ru San Tan2, U Rajendra Acharya3,4,5.
Abstract
Arterial hypertension (HT) is a chronic condition of elevated blood pressure (BP), which may cause increased incidence of cardiovascular disease, stroke, kidney failure and mortality. If the HT is diagnosed early, effective treatment can control the BP and avert adverse outcomes. Physiological signals like electrocardiography (ECG), photoplethysmography (PPG), heart rate variability (HRV), and ballistocardiography (BCG) can be used to monitor health status but are not directly correlated with BP measurements. The manual detection of HT using these physiological signals is time consuming and prone to human errors. Hence, many computer-aided diagnosis systems have been developed. This paper is a systematic review of studies conducted on the automated detection of HT using ECG, HRV, PPG and BCG signals. In this review, we have identified 23 studies out of 250 screened papers, which fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Details of the study methods, physiological signal studied, database used, various nonlinear techniques employed, feature extraction, and diagnostic performance parameters are discussed. The machine learning and deep learning based methods based on ECG and HRV signals have yielded the best performance and can be used for the development of computer-aided diagnosis of HT. This work provides insights that may be useful for the development of wearable for continuous cuffless remote monitoring of BP based on ECG and HRV signals.Entities:
Keywords: ANN; BCG signal; CNN; ECG signal; HRV signal; HT ECG signal classification; PPG signal; RNN; deep learning; hypertension; supervised machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072304 PMCID: PMC8198170 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Classification of HT based on office blood pressure measurement [1].
| Category | Systolic (mm Hg) | Diastolic (mm Hg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal BP | <130 | and | <85 |
| High-normal BP | 130–139 | and/or | 85–89 |
| Grade 1 hypertension | 140–149 | and/or | 90–99 |
| Grade 2 hypertension | ≥160 | and/or | ≥100 |
Figure 1ECG waveform with standard intervals. Correlations have been found between systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measurements and morphological data in the corresponding indicated epochs. The Figure is generated from PTB database (subject no. 14).
Figure 2Flow diagram of the article selection process using PRISMA methodology.
All details used in HT diagnosis from ECG signal.
| S No. | Author/Year | Signal | Feature | Method | Subject | Database | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rajput et al. [2019] [ | ECG | Signal fractal dimension and Log energy | Wavelet decomposition using FB, feature extraction, student-t test, developed index | 139 | SHAREE | 100 % discrimination of LRHT, HRHT |
| 2 | Soh et al. [2020] [ | ECG | 18, non-linear | EMD is used to decomposed ECG signal up-to 5 level using IMF, feature extraction, student t-test and then used supervised KNN classifier | 157 | SHAREE, MIT-BIH | ACC = 97.70% , SEN = 98.90%, SPE = 89.10% |
| 3 | Rajput et al. [2020] [ | ECG | SeEn and WlEn | Wavelet decomposition using FB, feature extraction, used EBT classifier to classify severity of HT | 191 | SHAREE, PTB | ACC = 99.95%, SEN = 98.64%, SPE = 99.91%, F1 = 97.3% AUC = 1 |
| 4 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | ECG, PPG | Ratio, Slope, Power area, waveform area, VPG and APG, Time span, PPG amplitude, PAT Feature | Classification of HT | 121 | MIMIC | SEN = 94.26%, SPE = 96.17%, F1 = 94.84% |
| 5 | Soh et al. [2020] [ | ECG | Total 1507 | Classification using CNN, DL model | 157 | SHAREE, MIT-BIH | ACC = 99.99%, SEN = 100%, SPE = 99.97% |
| 6 | Jain et al. [2020] [ | ECG | 11 layer CNN | Classification using CNN, DL model | 191 | SHAREE | ACC = 99.68% |
| 7 | Present study | ECG | HOS, bispectrum, Cumulant, RQA | Direct feature extraction and classification | 191 | SHAREE, PTB | ACC = 98.05%, SEN = 95.66%, SPE = 96.58% |
All details used in HT diagnosis from HRV and BCG signals.
| S No. | Author/Year | Signal | Feature | Method | Subject | Database | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Melillo et al. [2015] [ | HRV | PP ( SD1 and SD2), CD, DFA (features: Alpha1,Alpha2), and RP and HRV | Statistical analysis | 139 | SHAREE | ACC = 85.7%, SEN = 71.4%, SPE = 87.8% |
| 2 | Ni et al. [2019] [ | HRV | 18 HRV multidimensional features | Wavelet transform, | 139 | SHAREE | AUC = 0.95 |
| 3 | Y.song et al. [2015] [ | HRV, BCG | HRV time and frequency domain feature and DFA | EEMD, data-mining, DFA | 18 | Private | ACC = 92.3% |
| 4 | Poddar et al. [2014] [ | HRV | Nonlinear parameters of PP, ApEn and SeEn and HRV time and frequency domain feature | Classification of HRV | 113 | Private | ACC = 100%, SEN = 100%, SPE = 100% |
| 5 | Natrajan et al.[2014] [ | HRV | HRV feature | Statistical analysis using SPSS | 60 | Private | HRV reduce in HT subjects |
| 6 | Ni et al. [2017] [ | HRV | ApEn and SeEn and HRV time and frequency domain feature | Classification of HRV signal | 24 | Private | ACC = 93.3% |
| 7 | Poddar et al. [2019] [ | HRV | HRV time and frequency domain feature | Classification of HRV | 185 | Private | ACC = 96.7% |
| 8 | Koichub et al. [2018] [ | HRV | HRV time and frequency domain feature, CD | Statistical analysis | 56 | Private | HRV decreased in HT group |
| 9 | Tejera et al. [2011] [ | HRV | LZ, and SeEn, HRV time and frequency domain feature | ANN | 568 | Private | SPE = 90% , AUC = 0.98 |
| 10 | Mussalo et al. [2008] [ | HRV | HRV time and frequency domain feature | Statistical analysis using SPSS | 97 | Private | LF, HF power decrease in SEHT group |
| 11 | Liu et al. [2019] [ | HRV, BCG | HRV time and frequency domain feature, SeEn, DFA, BCG fluctuation features | Classification, feature extraction, selection, identification of HT | 128 | Open source | ACC = 84.4%, PRE = 82.5%, REC = 85.3% |
| 12 | Kublanov et al. [2017] [ | HRV, ECG | CWT, HRV feature | Classification of HT | 71 | Private | Score = 91.33% ± 1.73 |
| 13 | Alkhodari et al. [2020] [ | HRV | HRV feature | Low and high-risk HT | 139 | SHAREE | ACC = 97.08% |
All details used in HT diagnosis from PPG signal.
| S No. | Author/Year | Signal | Feature | Method | Subject | Database | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | PPG | CWT | Classification using Pre-trained CNN (GoogLeNet, 144 layer) | 121 | MIMIC | F1-score = 92.55% |
| 2 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | PPG | Ratio, Slope, Power area, waveform area, VPG and APG, Time span, PPG amplitude | Classification of HT | 124 | Private | PP = 100%, SE = 85.71%, F1-score = 92.31% |
| 3 | Lan et al. [2018] [ | PPG, HRV | HRV time and frequency domain feature | Data mining | 43 | Private | ACC = 85.47%, SPE = 83.33%, PRE = 92.11% |
| 4 | Ghose et al. [ | PPG , HRV | Mean, SD, min and max, HRV time and frequency domain feature | Classification of HT | 20 | Private | F1-score = 83% |
Figure 3Proposed automated system to detect HT ECG signals.
Figure 4Workflow of proposed methods for HT diagnosis using ECG signals. HC represents healthy control, LRHT, low-risk hypertension, and HRHT is high-risk hypertension.
Summary of bispectrum features (mean ± standard deviation) values obtained for three classes.
| Bispectrum | LRHT | HRHT | HC |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.927 ± 0.044 | 0.866 ± 0.076 | 0.582 ± 0.237 |
|
| 0.707 ± 0.161 | 0.538 ± 0.181 | 0.097 ± 0.11 |
|
| 3324 ± 1369 | 2297 ± 1170 | 714 ± 820 |
|
| 1524 ± 733 | 846 ± 620 | 333 ± 387 |
|
| 1.9 × | 1.8 × | 3× |
|
| 40,873 ± 2946 | 38,718 ± 2743 | 63,642 ± 2803 |
|
| 9.7× | 8.9× | 1.5× |
| mAmp | 4.3× | 9.6× | 7.7× |
|
| 3.58 ± 0.00028 | 3.58 ± 0.00048 | 3.56 ± 0.063 |
Summary of RQA features (mean ± standard deviation) values obtained for three classes.
| RQA | LRHT | HRHT | HC |
|---|---|---|---|
| RR | 8× | 9× | 5× |
| DET | 0.375 ± 0.0928 | 0.483 ± 0.138 | 0.508 ± 0.0972 |
| ENT | 0.486 ± 0.112 | 0.628 ± 0.190 | 0.662 ± 0.143 |
| LMR | 2.448 ± 0.407 | 2.685 ± 0.868 | 2.748 ± 0.289 |
HOS cumulant second, third, and fourth order features computed (mean ± standard deviation) values obtained for three classes.
| HOS Feature | LRHT | HRHT | HC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulant | 125.23 ± 432.91 | 93.42 ± 176.32 | 8× |
| Cumulant | 17.232 ± 4269.5 | −1111.3 ± 4534 | −8 × |
| Cumulant | 92,476 ± 1 × | 1× | 3× |
Confusion matrix with SVM classifier using HOS bispectrum, cumulant and RQA features.
| HC | HRHT | LRHT | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC | 79 | 0 | 1 |
| HRHT | 0 | 393 | 49 |
| LRHT | 0 | 22 | 3150 |
Performance parameters obtained using HOS bispectrum, cumulants and RQA features with SVM classifier.
| Class | Accuracy% | Sensitivity% | Specificity% | F1-Score% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC | 99.97 | 98.75 | 100 | 99.37 |
| HRHT | 98.07 | 88.87 | 99.32 | 91.71 |
| LRHT | 98.05 | 99.30 | 90.42 | 98.87 |
Figure 5ROC plot obtained with SVM classifier.
Figure 6Graph of accuracy (%) versus combined features (bispectrum, cumulants and RQA).
Figure 7HC-bispectrum plot.
Figure 8HRHT-bispectrum plot.
Figure 9LRHT-bispectrum plot.
Figure 10HC-contour plot.
Figure 11HRHT-contour plot.
Figure 12LRHT-contour plot.
Figure 13Recurrence plots for various groups: (a) healthy controls, (b) HRHT, and (c) LRHT.
Summary of classification performance obtained using various combination of features.
| S.No | Feature | Accuracy % | AUC | Classifier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HOS cumulant order2,3,4 | 90.2 | 0.99 | EBT |
| 2 | HOS bispectrum | 96.3 | 0.99 | KNN |
| 3 | RQA | 91.0 | 1.00 | EBT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | SeEn | 84.3 | 0.74 | TREE |
| 5 | WeEn | 88.0 | 0.96 | TREE |
| 6 | ApEn | 81.8 | 0.94 | EBT |
| 7 | ReEn | 78.9 | 0.88 | EBT |
| 8 | SeEn, WeEn, ApEN, ReEn | 89.1 | 0.97 | EBT |
| 9 | SLFD | 87.1 | 0.96 | SVM |
| 10 | HE | 87.8 | 0.92 | SVM |
| 11 | LLE | 82.4 | 0.86 | NB |
| 13 | SLFD, HE, LLE, | 88.1 | 0.97 | EBT |
| 15 | LOGE | 86.4 | 0.94 | TREE |
| 16 | SeEn, WeEn, ApEN, ReEn, SLFD, HE, LLE, LOGE | 95.5 | 0.99 | EBT |
Summary of works carried out on automated detection of HT diagnosis.
| S No. | Author/Year | Type of ML | Classifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Soh et al. [2020] [ | Supervised ML | KNN |
| 2 | Melillo et al. [2015] [ | Supervised ML | AB, NB, RF, SVM |
| 3 | Ni et al. [2019] [ | Supervised ML | SVM,RF,NB |
| 4 | Song et al. [2015] [ | Supervised ML | SVM, RF, KNN |
| 5 | Poddar et al. [2014] [ | Supervised ML | SVM |
| 6 | Ni et al. [2017] [ | Supervised ML | Linear SVM |
| 7 | Poddar et al. [2019] [ | Supervised ML | SVM, KNN |
| 8 | Tejera et al. [2011] [ | ANN | ANN |
| 9 | Rajput et al. [2020] [ | Supervised ML | KNN, SVM, TREE, and EBT |
| 10 | Liu et al. [2019] [ | Supervised ML | SVM, DT, NB |
| 11 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | DL | CNN, GoogLeNet |
| 12 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | Supervised ML | LDA, SVM, KNN, LR |
| 13 | Liang et al. [2018] [ | Supervised ML | AB, KNN, EBT, LR |
| 14 | Lan et al. [2018] [ | Semi-supervised learning | - |
| 15 | Ghose et al. [ | Supervised ML | AB, KNN, EBT, DT, RF, NB, SVM |
| 16 | Kublanov et al. [ | Supervised ML | LDA, SVM, KNN, NB, DT |
| 17 | Soh et al. [2020] [ | DL model | CNN |
| 18 | Jain et al. [2020] [ | DL model | |
| 19 | Alkhodari et al. [2020] [ | ML | RUSBOOST, TREE, SVM |
| 20 | Present study | Supervised ML | KNN, EBT, SVM |
Figure 14Proposed cloud based model.
Abbreviation used in the review study.
| Abbreviation | Full Form | Abbreviation | Full Form |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLFD | Signal fractal dimensions | LOGE | Log energy |
| LLE | Largest Lyapunov Exponent | HOS | Higher order spectral |
| OGWB | Orthogonal wavelet filter bank | ||
| HT | Hypertension | SBP | Systolic blood pressure |
| HRV | Heart rate variability | DBP | Diastolic blood pressure |
| ECG | Electrocardiography | DWT | Discrete Wavelet Transform |
| PPG | Photoplethysmography | BCG | Ballistocardiogram |
| LVH | left ventricular hypertrophy | VG | ventricular gradient |
| PPG | Photoplethysmography | HDI | Hypertension diagnosis index |
| ML | Machine learning | ||
| DL | Deep Learning | ANN | Artificial Neural Network |
| CNN | Convolution neural network | RNN | Recurrent Nural Network |
| SVM | Support vector machine | KNN | K-nearest neighbour |
| CWT | Continuous Wavelet Transform | FFT | Fast Fourier transform |
| ANOVA | Analysis of variance | ROC | Receiver operating characteristics |
| EBT | Ensemble Bagged Tree | AB | Ada boost |
| LR | Logistic Regression | NB | Navy Bayes |
| RF | Random Forrest | LRA | Linear Regression Analysis |
| SeEn | Sample entropy | ApEn | Approximate entropy |
| ReEn | Reny entropy | WlEn | Wavelet entropy |
| DFA | Detrended fluctuation analysis | CD | Correlation Dimension |
| LZ | Lempel-Ziv complexity | RC | Recurrence Plot |
| PP | Poincare plot | EMD | Empirical Mode Decomposition |
| VPG | Velocity plethysmogram | APG | Acceleration plethysmogram |
| PAT | Pulse arrival time | INVD | Inverse dower |
| ACC | Accuracy | SPE | Specificity |
| SEN | Sensitivity | PRE | Precision |
| REC | Recall | AUC | Area under the curve |
| PPV | Positive predictive value | NPV | Negative Predictive Value |
| SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences | MANOVA | Multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA |
| PRISMA | Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses | HRHT | High-risk hypertension |
| RUSBOOST | random under-sampling boosting | KNN | K-nearest neighbour |
| HC | Healthy control | LRHT | Low-risk hypertension |
| DT | Decision tree | LDA | Linear Discriminate analysis |