Why the study?
Little progress has been made on determining the best anatomical position for effective chest compressions and cardiac function during CPR.
Does a deep neural network with an attention mechanism and residual feature aggregation improve left ventricle segmentation in transesophageal echocardiography images during CPR compared to U-Net?
Does a deep neural network with an attention mechanism and residual feature aggregation improve left ventricle segmentation in transesophageal echocardiography images during CPR compared to U-Net?
A novel deep neural network model outperforms U-Net in segmenting the left ventricle from transesophageal echocardiography images during CPR, potentially aiding in evaluating systolic function and optimizing chest compression position.
PURPOSE: There has been little progress in research on the best anatomical position for effective chest compressions and cardiac function during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study aimed to divide the left ventricle (LV) into segments to determine the best position for effective chest compressions using the LV systolic function seen during CPR. METHODS: We used transesophageal echocardiography images acquired during CPR. A deep neural network with an attention mechanism and a residual feature aggregation module were applied to the images to segment the LV. The results were compared between the proposed model and U-Net. RESULTS: The results of the proposed model showed higher performance in most metrics when compared to U-Net: dice coefficient (0.899±0.017 vs. 0.792±0.027, p<0.05); intersection of union (0.822±0.026 vs. 0.668±0.034, p<0.05); recall (0.904±0.023 vs. 0.757±0.037, p<0.05); precision (0.901±0.021 vs. 0.859±0.034, p>0.05). There was a significant difference between the proposed model and U-Net. CONCLUSION: Compared to U-Net, the proposed model showed better performance for all metrics. This model would allow us to evaluate the systolic function of the heart during CPR in greater detail by segmenting the LV more accurately.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: