Automated Condition-Based Suppression of the CPR Artifact in ECG Data to Make a Reliable Shock Decision for AEDs during CPR.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) corrupts the morphology of the electrocardiogram (ECG) signal, resulting in an inaccurate automated external defibrillator (AED) rhythm analysis. Consequently, most current AEDs prohibit CPR during the rhythm analysis period, thereby decreasing the survival rate. To overcome this limitation, we designed a condition-based filtering algorithm that consists of three stop-band filters which are turned either 'on' or 'off' depending on the ECG's spectral characteristics. Typically, removing the artifact's higher frequency peaks in addition to the highest frequency peak eliminates most of the ECG's morphological disturbance on the non-shockable rhythms. However, the shockable rhythms usually have dynamics in the frequency range of (3-6) Hz, which in certain cases coincide with CPR compression's harmonic frequencies, hence, removing them may lead to destruction of the shockable signal's dynamics. The proposed algorithm achieves CPR artifact removal without compromising the integrity of the shockable rhythm by considering three different spectral factors. The dataset from the PhysioNet archive was used to develop this condition-based approach. To quantify the performance of the approach on a separate dataset, three performance metrics were computed: the correlation coefficient, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and accuracy of Defibtech's shock decision algorithm. This dataset, containing 14 s ECG segments of different types of rhythms from 458 subjects, belongs to Defibtech commercial AED's validation set. The CPR artifact data from 52 different resuscitators were added to artifact-free ECG data to create 23,816 CPR-contaminated data segments. From this, 82% of the filtered shockable and 70% of the filtered non-shockable ECG data were highly correlated (>0.7) with the artifact-free ECG; this value was only 13 and 12% for CPR-contaminated shockable and non-shockable, respectively, without our filtering approach. The SNR improvement was 4.5 ± 2.5 dB, averaging over the entire dataset. Defibtech's rhythm analysis algorithm was applied to the filtered data. We found a sensitivity improvement from 67.7 to 91.3% and 62.7 to 78% for VF and rapid VT, respectively, and specificity improved from 96.2 to 96.5% and 91.5 to 92.7% for normal sinus rhythm (NSR) and other non-shockables, respectively.

Deep Neural Network Approach for Continuous ECG-Based Automated External Defibrillator Shock Advisory System During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Background Because chest compressions induce artifacts in the ECG, current automated external defibrillators instruct the user to stop cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) while an automated rhythm analysis is performed. It has been shown that minimizing interruptions in CPR increases the chance of survival. Methods and Results The objective of this study was to apply a deep-learning algorithm using convolutional layers, residual networks, and bidirectional long short-term memory method to classify shockable versus nonshockable rhythms in the presence and absence of CPR artifact. Forty subjects' data from Physionet with 1131 shockable and 2741 nonshockable samples contaminated with 43 different CPR artifacts that were acquired from a commercial automated external defibrillator during asystole were used. We had separate data as train and test sets. Using our deep neural network model, the sensitivity and specificity of the shock versus no-shock decision for the entire data set over the 4-fold cross-validation sets were 95.21% and 86.03%, respectively. This result was based on the training and testing of the model using ECG data in both the presence and the absence of CPR artifact. For ECG without CPR artifact, the sensitivity was 99.04% and the specificity was 95.2%. A sensitivity of 94.21% and a specificity of 86.14% were obtained for ECG with CPR artifact. In addition to 4-fold cross-validation sets, we also examined leave-one-subject-out validation. The sensitivity and specificity for the case of leave-one-subject-out validation were 92.71% and 97.6%, respectively. Conclusions The proposed trained model can make shock versus nonshock decision in automated external defibrillators, regardless of CPR status. The results meet the American Heart Association's sensitivity requirement (>90%).