Key result
Machine learning alarm system achieves ~82% sensitivity and alerts to arrhythmias earlier than standard bedside monitors.
Why the study?
Life-threatening arrhythmias in the ICU require more precise and instantaneous identification than existing bedside monitors provide.
Does a machine learning-based alarm classification system improve the detection and latency of life-threatening arrhythmias in the ICU compared to existing bedside monitors?
Does a machine learning-based alarm classification system improve the detection and latency of life-threatening arrhythmias in the ICU compared to existing bedside monitors?
A machine learning-based heart rhythm alerting system improves the accuracy and speed of detecting life-threatening arrhythmias in the ICU compared to standard bedside monitors.
AIMS: This work attempts to develop a standalone heart rhythm alerting system for the intensive care unit (ICU), where life-threatening arrhythmias have to be identified/alerted more precisely and more instantaneously (i.e. with lower latency) than existing bedside monitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We use the dataset from the PhysioNet 2015 Challenge, which contains records that led to true and false arrhythmic alarms in the ICU. These records have been re-annotated as one of eight classes, namely (i) asystole, (ii) extreme bradycardia, (iii) extreme tachycardia, (iv) ventricular fibrillation (VF), (v) ventricular tachycardia (VT), (vi) normal sinus rhythm, (vii) sinus tachycardia, and (viii) noise/artefacts. Arrhythmia-specific features and features that measure the signal quality were extracted from all the records. To improve VF detection, an improved, over an existing, single-lead R-wave detection was developed that takes into account the R-waves detected in all electrocardiographic (ECG) leads. To avoid false R-wave detection due to pacing spikes, ECG signals were filtered with a low pass filter prior to R-wave detection, while the raw signals were used for feature extraction. Random forest was used as the classifier, and 10-time five-fold cross-validation, resulted in a macro-average sensitivity of 81.54%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, comparing with the bedside monitors used in the PhysioNet 2015 competition, we find that our method achieves higher positive predictive values for asystole, extreme bradycardia, VT, and VF; furthermore, our method is able to alert the presence of arrhythmia instantaneously, i.e. up to 4 s earlier.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Au‐Yeung et al. (2021) studied Intensive care unit arrhythmic alarms. Machine learning-based alarm classification system vs. Existing bedside monitors was evaluated on Macro-average sensitivity. A machine learning-based alarm classification system achieved a macro-average sensitivity of 81.54% and alerted to arrhythmias up to 4 seconds earlier than existing bedside monitors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: