Shock decision algorithm for use during load distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Isasi, I.; Irusta, U.; Aramendi, E.; Olsen, J.A.; Wik, L.
• Is Part Of: Resuscitation. Volume 165(2021)
• Page Start: 93
• Page End: 100
• Publication Date: 2021-08
• Subjects: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) -- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) -- Shock decision algorithm -- Load distributing band (LDB) -- Machine learning (ML) -- Shock/no-shock decision; Resuscitation -- Periodicals; Resuscitation -- Periodicals; Réanimation -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.025
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.05.028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-9572

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Chest compressions delivered by a load distributing band (LDB) induce artefacts in the electrocardiogram. These artefacts alter shock decisions in defibrillators. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the first reliable shock decision algorithm during LDB compressions. Methods: The study dataset comprised 5813 electrocardiogram segments from 896 cardiac arrest patients during LDB compressions. Electrocardiogram segments were annotated by consensus as shockable (1154, 303 patients) or nonshockable (4659, 841 patients). Segments during asystole were used to characterize the LDB artefact and to compare its characteristics to those of manual artefacts from other datasets. LDB artefacts were removed using adaptive filters. A machine learning algorithm was designed for the shock decision after filtering, and its performance was compared to that of a commercial defibrillator's algorithm. Results: Median (90% confidence interval) compression frequencies were lower and more stable for the LDB than for the manual artefact, 80 min −1 (79.9–82.9) vs. 104.4 min −1 (48.5–114.0). The amplitude and waveform regularity (Pearson's correlation coefficient) were larger for the LDB artefact, with 5.5 mV (0.8–23.4) vs. 0.5 mV (0.1–2.2) ( p < 0.001) and 0.99 (0.78–1.0) vs. 0.88 (0.55–0.98) ( p < 0.001). The shock decision accuracy was significantly higher for the machine learning algorithm than for the defibrillator algorithm, with sensitivity/specificity pairs of 92.1/96.8% (machine learning) vs. 91.4/87.1% (defibrillator) ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Compared to other cardiopulmonary resuscitation artefacts, removing the LDB artefact was challenging due to larger amplitudes and lower compression frequencies. The machine learning algorithm achieved clinically reliable shock decisions during LDB compressions.