Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul 21;11(7):e0159654.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159654. eCollection 2016.

Machine Learning Techniques for the Detection of Shockable Rhythms in Automated External Defibrillators

Carlos Figuera  1 , Unai Irusta  2 , Eduardo Morgado  1 , Elisabete Aramendi  2 , Unai Ayala  3 , Lars Wik  4 , Jo Kramer-Johansen  4 , Trygve Eftestøl  5 , Felipe Alonso-Atienza  1
Affiliations

Machine Learning Techniques for the Detection of Shockable Rhythms in Automated External Defibrillators

Carlos Figuera et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Early recognition of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and electrical therapy are key for the survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with automated external defibrillators (AED). AED algorithms for VF-detection are customarily assessed using Holter recordings from public electrocardiogram (ECG) databases, which may be different from the ECG seen during OHCA events. This study evaluates VF-detection using data from both OHCA patients and public Holter recordings. ECG-segments of 4-s and 8-s duration were analyzed. For each segment 30 features were computed and fed to state of the art machine learning (ML) algorithms. ML-algorithms with built-in feature selection capabilities were used to determine the optimal feature subsets for both databases. Patient-wise bootstrap techniques were used to evaluate algorithm performance in terms of sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and balanced error rate (BER). Performance was significantly better for public data with a mean Se of 96.6%, Sp of 98.8% and BER 2.2% compared to a mean Se of 94.7%, Sp of 96.5% and BER 4.4% for OHCA data. OHCA data required two times more features than the data from public databases for an accurate detection (6 vs 3). No significant differences in performance were found for different segment lengths, the BER differences were below 0.5-points in all cases. Our results show that VF-detection is more challenging for OHCA data than for data from public databases, and that accurate VF-detection is possible with segments as short as 4-s.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Examples of ECG found in public (top) and OHCA (bottom) data.
The top-left segment corresponds to a VF from CUDB (record, cu05) right after VF onset, and presents large amplitude and a fibrillation frequency of 4.5 Hz. The bottom-left segments were recorded during OHCA 5–10 minutes after VF onset, and have smaller amplitudes and fibrillation frequencies (3.5 Hz and 2.5 Hz). The top-right segment corresponds to a NSR from cu05 right before VF onset. The bottom-right segments are examples of PEA in OHCA patients. Both cases show aberrant QRS complexes and low heart rates. The bottom example presents an extremely low heart-rate of 15 beats per minute.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Overview of the test procedure.
Blue boxes specify the figures and tables where the results corresponding to each procedure can be found in the manuscript.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Box plots of the performance metrics for the five algorithms for the public databases (a) and the OHCA database (b).
All features were included in the algorithms.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Feature selection with BSTsel (top) and the L1-LRsel (bottom) approaches.
The results are shown for 4-s (left) and 8-s (right) segments for both public and OHCA databases. The mean BER is shown (with errorbars) for each subset size, and the horizontal line represents the subset selection threshold for the public (red) and OHCA (green) databases. The triangle and dot marks and their corresponding numbers represent the selected subset and the minimum BER subset, respectively.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Examples of misclassified 8-s ECG samples from the public (left) and OHCA (right) databases.
A VF is shown on top and two nonshockable rhythms below for both databases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hayashi M, Shimizu W, Albert CM. The spectrum of epidemiology underlying sudden cardiac death. Circulation research. 2015;116(12):1887–1906. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.304521 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hallstrom A, Ornato JP. Public-access defibrillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The New England journal of medicine. 2004;351(7):637 10.1056/NEJMoa040566 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kerber RE, Becker LB, Bourland JD, Cummins RO, Hallstrom AP, Michos MB, et al. Automatic External Defibrillators for Public Access Defibrillation: Recommendations for Specifying and Reporting Arrhythmia Analysis Algorithm Performance, Incorporating New Waveforms, and Enhancing Safety A Statement for Health Professionals From the American Heart Association Task Force on Automatic External Defibrillation, Subcommittee on AED Safety and Efficacy. Circulation. 1997;95(6):1677–1682. - PubMed
    1. Kuo S, Dillman R. Computer detection of ventricular fibrillation In: Computers in Cardiology; 1978. p. 2747–2750.
    1. Chen S, Thakor NV, Mower MM. Ventricular fibrillation detection by a regression test on the autocorrelation function. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing. 1987. May;25(3):241–9. 10.1007/BF02447420 - DOI - PubMed