| Literature DB >> 34113853 |
Kirstin Aschbacher1,2, Defne Yilmaz1, Yaniv Kerem3, Stuart Crawford3, David Benaron3, Jiaqi Liu3, Meghan Eaton3, Geoffrey H Tison1,4, Jeffrey E Olgin1, Yihan Li3, Gregory M Marcus1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF), a common cause of stroke, often is asymptomatic. Smartphones and smartwatches can detect AF using heart rate patterns inferred using photoplethysmography (PPG); however, enhanced accuracy is required to reduce false positives in screening populations.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Atrial fibrillation; Heart rate sensor; Machine learning; Mobile health; Photoplethysmography; Smartwatch; Wearable
Year: 2020 PMID: 34113853 PMCID: PMC8183963 DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2020.02.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 ISSN: 2666-5018
Baseline characteristics of participants undergoing cardioversion
| Baseline characteristics | Train (n = 40) | Test (n = 11) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (y) | 62.8 ± 11.0 | 65.6 ± 14.4 | .48 |
| Male | 30 (75%) | 10 (91%) | .26 |
| White | 36 (90%) | 9 (82%) | .46 |
| Body mass index (kg/cm2) | 30.2 ± 6.2 | 30.0 ± 6.3 | .91 |
| Medical characteristics | |||
| Hypertension | 20 (50%) | 8 (73%) | .18 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 10 (25%) | 1 (9%) | .26 |
| Coronary artery disease | 4 (10%) | 0 (0%) | .27 |
| Congestive heart failure | 4 (10%) | 1 (9%) | .91 |
| Obstructive sleep apnea | 17 (43%) | 4 (36%) | .71 |
| Myocardial infarction | 3 (8%) | 1 (9%) | .86 |
| Cardiomyopathy | 4 (10%) | 1 (9%) | .93 |
| Valvular heart disease | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | .45 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | .60 |
| Previous cardioversion | 19 (48%) | 6 (55%) | .68 |
| Stroke | 2 (5%) | 1 (9%) | .61 |
| Treatment characteristics | |||
| Beta-blocker | 22 (55%) | 9 (82%) | .11 |
| Antiarrhythmic drug | 25 (63%) | 4 (36%) | .12 |
| Anticoagulant drug | 38 (95%) | 11 (100%) | .45 |
| Procedural characteristics | |||
| No. of shocks | 1.3 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ±0.3 | .22 |
| Successful cardioversion | 34 ± 0.4 | 9 ± 0.4 | .80 |
| Joules delivered | 306.5 ± 312 | 242.7 ± 117 | .30 |
Demographic, medical, and procedural characteristics for all participants in train and test sets undergoing cardioversion are listed. Values are given as mean ± SD or n (%), unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 1Raw photoplethysmography (PPG) waveforms of a randomly selected patient in both atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal sinus rhythm. Shown are waveform tracings from the raw PPG output of a single participant in AF before cardioversion and in normal sinus rhythm after cardioversion. Top: The morphology of the AF waveform displays the characteristically “irregularly irregular” pattern, with irregularities in both wave amplitude and period, which underlies all AF arrhythmias as measured on standard 12-lead electrocardiograms. Bottom: In contrast, the morphology of the sinus rhythm waveform is more uniform, both in amplitude and period.
Figure 2Deep neural network model predictions plotted against the actual photoplethysmography (PPG) waveform and frequency analysis. Top: Model prediction outcome for a sample participant, using the deep convolutional-recurrent neural network, in which outcomes at or above 0.5 are classified as atrial fibrillation and those below 0.5 as normal sinus rhythm. Middle: Spectrogram with consecutive Fourier transformation on the raw optical data, illustrating the power spectra across component frequencies. These spectra illustrate (as expected) the greater preponderance of higher frequencies and spectral variability pre- vs post-cardioversion. Bottom: Raw PPG optical stream at 20 Hz.
Performance characteristics of 3 models in the cardioversion patient test set
| Algorithm type | AUC | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional heart rate variability | 0.717 | 74.1 | 58.4 | 80.8 | 48.8 |
| Machine learning fed heart rate only data | 0.954 | 81.0 | 92.1 | 96.0 | 67.1 |
| Machine learning fed raw waveform data | 0.983 | 98.5 | 88.0 | 95.1 | 96.2 |
Model evaluation indices are given for each of the 3 models applied to the test set of patients undergoing cardioversion.
AUC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value.
Using the root mean square of the successive interval differences.
Using a long short-term memory algorithm.
Using a deep convolutional-recurrent neural network algorithm.
Figure 3Model performance characteristics for conventional heart rate, heart rate analyzed by deep learning, and the raw photoplethysmography (PPG) waveforms analyzed by deep learning. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), measured in the test set, is reported for each of the 3 models. The green line represents the conventional logistic regression model fed the root mean square of successive differences, a conventional assessment of heart rate variability. The blue line represents the long short-term memory model fed a heart rate data series. The red line represents the deep learning model (a convolutional-recurrent neural network) fed the raw PPG waveform data.
Figure 4Waveform morphology of a single patient in atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Morphologic differences are shown. Left: Variability in heart rate and photoplethysmography (PPG) amplitude for a randomly selected patient who was successfully cardioverted, during AF (A) and NSR (B). AF (red in B) is characterized by greater heart rate variability and lower amplitude. The x-axis represents beats per minute (BPM), which is calculated as the inverse of the time between consecutive minima. The y-axis is the PPG amplitude in arbitrary units (a.u.). Right: Morphologic characteristics of the patient’s mean heart rate cycle, using resampling to equate the time domain. It is visually evident that the morphology differed during AF and NSR for this representative patient.