MLWAVE: A novel algorithm to classify primary versus secondary asphyxia-associated ventricular fibrillation

INTRODUCTION/HYPOTHESIS: The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) depends on timely recognition of the underlying cause of cardiac arrest. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) waveform analysis to differentiate primary VF from secondary asphyxia-associated VF may allow tailoring of therapies to improve cardiac arrest outcomes. Therefore, the primary goal of this investigation was to develop a novel technique utilizing wavelet synchrosqueezed transform (WSST) and decision-tree classifier that was specifically adapted to discriminate between these two incidents of VF. METHODS: Secondary analytical investigation of electrocardiography (ECG) data obtained from swine models of either primary VF (n = 18) or secondary asphyxia-associated VF (7 min of asphyxia prior to VF induction; n = 12). In the primary analysis, WSST technique was applied to the first 35 s of the VF ECG signal to identify the most differentiating characteristics of the signal for use as features to develop a machine learning algorithm to classify the arrest as either primary VF vs. secondary asphyxia-associated VF. The performance of this new interactive Machine Learning algorithm with Wavelet Energy features of ECG (MLWAVE) was assessed using both classification accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC). To evaluate the validity of the new technique, the amplitude spectrum area (AMSA)-based technique, a well-established defibrillation classification method, was also applied to the same ECG signals. The classification accuracy and AUCROC were then compared between the two techniques. RESULTS: For the primary analysis evaluating the first 35 s of the VF waveform, the MLWAVE technique classified the type of VF with high accuracy (28/28 [100%], AUCROC: 1.00). The MLWAVE technique performed better than the AMSA technique across all comparisons, but given the small sample sizes, differences were not statistically significant (accuracy: 100% vs. 85.7%; p = 0.24; AUCROC: 1.00 vs. 0.82; p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: This analytical investigation illustrates the advantages of the MLWAVE signal processing method which was associated with 100% accuracy in classifying the type of VF waveform: primary vs. asphyxia-associated. Such classification could lead to personalized tailoring of resuscitation (e.g., immediate defibrillation vs. continued CPR and treatment of reversible cardiac arrest causes before defibrillation) to improve outcomes for cardiac arrest.