Sensors (Dec 2021)
Automated Condition-Based Suppression of the CPR Artifact in ECG Data to Make a Reliable Shock Decision for AEDs during CPR
Abstract
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.
Keywords
