These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Life-threatening false alarm rejection in ICU: using the rule-based and multi-channel information fusion method.
    Author: Liu C, Zhao L, Tang H, Li Q, Wei S, Li J.
    Journal: Physiol Meas; 2016 Aug; 37(8):1298-312. PubMed ID: 27454710.
    Abstract:
    False alarm (FA) rates as high as 86% have been reported in intensive care unit monitors. High FA rates decrease quality of care by slowing staff response times while increasing patient burdens and stresses. In this study, we proposed a rule-based and multi-channel information fusion method for accurately classifying the true or false alarms for five life-threatening arrhythmias: asystole (ASY), extreme bradycardia (EBR), extreme tachycardia (ETC), ventricular tachycardia (VTA) and ventricular flutter/fibrillation (VFB). The proposed method consisted of five steps: (1) signal pre-processing, (2) feature detection and validation, (3) true/false alarm determination for each channel, (4) 'real-time' true/false alarm determination and (5) 'retrospective' true/false alarm determination (if needed). Up to four signal channels, that is, two electrocardiogram signals, one arterial blood pressure and/or one photoplethysmogram signal were included in the analysis. Two events were set for the method validation: event 1 for 'real-time' and event 2 for 'retrospective' alarm classification. The results showed that 100% true positive ratio (i.e. sensitivity) on the training set were obtained for ASY, EBR, ETC and VFB types, and 94% for VTA type, accompanied by the corresponding true negative ratio (i.e. specificity) results of 93%, 81%, 78%, 85% and 50% respectively, resulting in the score values of 96.50, 90.70, 88.89, 92.31 and 64.90, as well as with a final score of 80.57 for event 1 and 79.12 for event 2. For the test set, the proposed method obtained the score of 88.73 for ASY, 77.78 for EBR, 89.92 for ETC, 67.74 for VFB and 61.04 for VTA types, with the final score of 71.68 for event 1 and 75.91 for event 2.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]