| Literature DB >> 35408255 |
Victor A Convertino1,2,3, Robert W Techentin4, Ruth J Poole4, Ashley C Dacy5, Ashli N Carlson1, Sylvain Cardin5, Clifton R Haider4, David R Holmes Iii6, Chad C Wiggins7, Michael J Joyner7, Timothy B Curry7, Omer T Inan8.
Abstract
The application of artificial intelligence (AI) has provided new capabilities to develop advanced medical monitoring sensors for detection of clinical conditions of low circulating blood volume such as hemorrhage. The purpose of this study was to compare for the first time the discriminative ability of two machine learning (ML) algorithms based on real-time feature analysis of arterial waveforms obtained from a non-invasive continuous blood pressure system (Finometer®) signal to predict the onset of decompensated shock: the compensatory reserve index (CRI) and the compensatory reserve metric (CRM). One hundred ninety-one healthy volunteers underwent progressive simulated hemorrhage using lower body negative pressure (LBNP). The least squares means and standard deviations for each measure were assessed by LBNP level and stratified by tolerance status (high vs. low tolerance to central hypovolemia). Generalized Linear Mixed Models were used to perform repeated measures logistic regression analysis by regressing the onset of decompensated shock on CRI and CRM. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed by calculation of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) for CRI and CRM. Values for CRI and CRM were not distinguishable across levels of LBNP independent of LBNP tolerance classification, with CRM ROC AUC (0.9268) being statistically similar (p = 0.134) to CRI ROC AUC (0.9164). Both CRI and CRM ML algorithms displayed discriminative ability to predict decompensated shock to include individual subjects with varying levels of tolerance to central hypovolemia. Arterial waveform feature analysis provides a highly sensitive and specific monitoring approach for the detection of ongoing hemorrhage, particularly for those patients at greatest risk for early onset of decompensated shock and requirement for implementation of life-saving interventions.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; compensatory reserve; deep learning; hemorrhage; machine learning; medical monitoring; sensor signals; shock
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408255 PMCID: PMC9003258 DOI: 10.3390/s22072642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Data-processing pipeline for CRM algorithm development.
Figure 2ROC AUC comparisons for prediction of the onset of decompensated shock between the compensatory reserve index (CRI—blue line) algorithm and the compensatory reserve metric (CRM—green line) algorithm. Diagonal broken red line represents a random guess threshold (i.e., no-discrimination line at 0.5).
Figure 3Average responses of compensatory reserve estimated by the CRI (orange line) and CRM (green line) algorithms for all 191 subjects (upper panel), 131 high-tolerance subjects (middle panel B), and 60 low-tolerance subjects (lower panel). The LBNP profile steps used for model development as a target of reduced central circulating blood volume are indicated by the blue broken line (labeled on the y-axis).
Amalgamated correlation coefficients (R2) between LBNP and CRM and CRI for all subjects and those classified as having high (HT) and low (LT) tolerance to central hypovolemia.
| CRM, % | CRI, % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | R2 | R2 | ||
| All subjects | 191 | 0.958 | 0.978 | 0.344 |
| HT subjects | 131 | 0.965 | 0.980 | 0.232 |
| LT subjects | 60 | 0.999 | 0.991 | <0.0001 |
Figure 4Plots of linear regressions calculated between progressive LBNP levels and measurements of compensatory reserve generated from CRM (circles) and CRI (squares) algorithms. Values are the mean ± SD calculated at the end of each 5 min step of LBNP from all 191 data sets presented in Figure 3 (upper panel).
Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) Area Under the Curve (AUC) values for CRM compared to various standard vital signs used for assessing the clinical status of bleeding trauma patients.
| References | N | Clinical Condition | CRM | SBP | HR | PP | SI | Lac |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadler et al. [ | 230 | Blood Donation | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.51 | 0.64 | - |
| Stewart et al. [ | 122 | Blood Donation | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.55 | - | - | - |
| Mackenzie et al. [ | 556 | Trauma Hemorrhage | 0.78–0.89 | - | 0.56–0.62 | - | - | - |
| Stewart et al. [ | 44 | Trauma Hemorrhage | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.64 | - | 0.74 | 0.73 |
| Benov et al. [ | 31 | GI Bleeding | 0.79 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.36 | - | - |
| Johnson et al. [ | 89 | Trauma Hemorrhage | 0.83 | 0.62 | - | - | - | - |
CRM, compensatory reserve measurement; SBP, systolic blood pressure; HR, heart rate; PP, pulse pressure; SI, shock index; Lac, blood lactate.