Review Article

New Innovations to Address Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

Mortality from sudden cardiac arrest remains high despite increased awareness and advancements in emergency resuscitation efforts. Various gaps exist in bystander resuscitation, automated external defibrillators, and access. Significant racial, gender, and geographic disparities have also been found. A myriad of recent innovations in sudden cardiac arrest uses new machine learning algorithms with high levels of performance. These have been applied to a broad range of efforts to identify individuals at high risk, recognize emergencies, and diagnose high-risk cardiac arrhythmias. Such technological advancements must be coupled to novel public health approaches to best implement these innovations in an equitable way. The authors propose a data-driven, technology-enabled system of care within a public health system of care to ultimately improve sudden cardiac arrest outcomes.

Disclosure:CPS is on the US Cardiology Review editorial board; this did not influence peer review. JDR has received speaker and consulting fees from Abbott and Medtronic. SPB has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Correspondence Details:Christine P Shen, Division of Cardiology , Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation, 9898 Genesee Ave, AMP 200, San Diego, CA 92037, US. E: shen.christine@scrippshealth.org.

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

The Current State of Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in the US accounts for an estimated 180,000–300,000 deaths per year.1 Autopsy studies show that about half of sudden cardiac death patients have no specific findings on autopsy, while the other half has specific findings, such as MI, heart failure, or pulmonary embolism.2 Although national educational and prevention campaigns have increased the awareness of SCA and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), the survival after an OHCA remains low at 9.1%.2,3 In the chain of survival, bystander initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) increases the 30-day survival rate to 10%.1 The effect is magnified when defibrillation with an automated external defibrillator (AED) is performed early by lay first responders. In fact, defibrillation by lay first responders was found to have the highest impact on survival (median 53%) when compared with professional emergency first responders (28.6%).1 In addition to survival, other benefits of bystander efforts include decreased rates of neurological damage and nursing home admissions.4 This improvement increases progressively as the arrival of emergency medical services is delayed. The increase in survival underlies the undeniable potential of pursuing innovation in cardiac arrest.

In this review, we describe new innovations to address unmet needs in the identification, treatment, and prevention of SCA and highlight technological advances such as machine learning and new AED designs in new public health models to reach the right person at the right time. We also discuss the priorities for reducing disparities in OHCA towards equitable interventions for communities at risk. Improving outcomes requires a combination of technological advancements and public health objects to propel the future of diagnosing and treating SCA.

Table 1: Gap Analysis

Article image

Gap Analysis

Table 1 lists several unmet factors limiting the outcomes of SCA. The lack of AED use during the moments after a person’s cardiac arrest is associated with limitations in AED devices themselves, as well as public health efforts. Because most ventricular tachyarrhythmias occur in public spaces, our efforts should focus on the use of AEDs outside the hospital.5 While the availability of these life-saving devices has increased over the past two decades, current devices are expensive (up to and greater than $3,000 per unit, plus an additional $150–400 for ongoing battery and electrode pad replacement).6 They are designed to be mounted in permanent holding locations, limiting their overall accessibility. Due to the necessity of manual maintenance, AEDs are often improperly maintained or neglected, leading to high rates of AED malfunction and failure. Device failures that have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) include not powering on, powering off unexpectedly, failure to complete rhythm analysis, and failing to deliver a shock.7 Because of improvements in preventing and treating coronary artery disease, the incidence of shockable rhythms, particularly ventricular fibrillation, has decreased.8

The use of AEDs relies on the bystander to look for and find a nearby device. There is no existing map of AEDs in the US, and there is no central registration of the devices, although there is an ongoing approach to create one through the Dynamic AED Registry.9 Approximately 1 million AEDs have been purchased in the past 20 years, but the precise location of each device is not known.10 In addition, placement of AEDs in businesses that close after business hours can limit access during evenings and weekends. As many as 62% of OHCAs occur in the evenings, nights, and weekends, resulting in a 53% reduction in AED coverage.11–13 While most AEDs are placed in open access cabinets, occasionally they are restricted and require personnel assistance, which can lengthen the time to access an AED.14

Even when AEDs are available during an OHCA, a lack of awareness and education of AEDs prevents their effective use. The general population is found to have as high as an 80% failure rate when compared with a 10% failure rate in trained physicians including anesthesiologists and surgeons.15 Successful defibrillation requires turning on the AED, placing AED pads on appropriate locations of a patient’s bare chest, waiting for analysis, prompting with voice and light, charging, and pushing the shock button while standing clear. Common mistakes include not removing the patient’s clothing, not placing pads correctly, and touching the patient while defibrillating.15 Up to 72% of errors associated with AED use are caused by the operator.16

Emerging Innovations to Address SCA

Improving Patient Identification with Electronic Medical Record Analytics

Advanced computational approaches such as machine learning have emerged to potentially improve the identification of patients shortly before a cardiac arrest. Lee et al. developed the Deep learning-based Early Warning System (DeepEWS) to predict cardiac arrests that occur in the hospital.17 The algorithm learned the relationship between vital signs and cardiac arrest and outperforms traditional track-and-trigger systems such as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) with a higher specificity (87.0% versus 79.9%).18 Although the DeepEWS has fewer variables than the MEWS, it has the advantage of being able to interpret the vital signs based on one another, such as interpreting an elevated heart rate differently depending on the body temperature.18

In patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, machine learning was used to identify lethal ventricular arrhythmias for risk stratification to determine the need for ICD implantation. Using an electronic health dataset that involved 93 variables from echocardiography, cardiac MRI, Holter monitors, and EKGs, the investigators were able to demonstrate 12 new predictors of ventricular arrhythmias, including global longitudinal strain. By combining multiple machine learning methods, the new model had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than the baseline model (0.83 versus 0.80).19 Similar predictive analytics by reviewing clinical diagnoses from the medical record have also been performed for patients with QTc interval prolongation to identify those at highest risk for torsade de pointes.20

Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, machine learning with Cox proportional regression modeling was used to develop a prognostic model for heart failure survival models that was found to be more accurate than the traditional Seattle Heart Failure Model, with an 11% improvement in AUC.21 The limitations of such analyses using medical record data include the quality and quantity of the dataset that trains the algorithms. Even with perfect methodology, a dataset that does not contain adequate predictors will not produce a strong machine learning algorithm.22

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches to Cardiac Rhythms and High-risk EKG Phenotypes

EKGs and vital signs are particularly rich in quantitative data, making them well-suited for machine learning. Over the years, a number of EKG classification schemes has been proposed and implemented for use to improve the reporting of shockable rhythms. A few such machine learning approaches include frequency domain analysis, gradient pattern detection, waveform shape matching techniques, and neural networks to predict EKG rhythm classification.23 Multiple studies test and compare the variety of machine learning methods for performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, AUC), and they report performances as high as 95–99% accuracy (Table 2).23–27 In fact, some research has aimed at determining whether algorithms can even exceed the accuracy (precision, recall, F1 score) of cardiologists.28

Table 2: Machine Learning Innovations in Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Article image

A common classification approach is to extract selected features of the EKG and to base classification on those features. Extracted features include time intervals such as PR interval, QRS, RR interval, and QT interval; amplitudes of P wave, QRS, or ST segment; shapes of P wave, QRS, and T wave; directions of the P wave, QRS, and T wave; and irregularity. These extracted features are submitted to a classifier, which in turn classifies the heart signal based on the extracted features. The classification results are then used to determine whether the detected cardiac rhythm is a good candidate for defibrillation shock therapy.24,28–30

Among the challenges in using machine learning for EKG interpretation is the abundance of individual features of EKG waveforms compared with a limited number of EKG training data. Often, the number of extracted features needs to be reduced or selected to be generalizable. Different techniques such as dimensionality reduction and feature selection optimize different feature combinations for a smaller subset of features to use in the classification.24 Combining multiple techniques improves learning further. For example, an algorithm combines a convolutional neural network with multiple input channels (stand-alone EKG, shockable, and non-shockable signals) with secondary learning (a boosting classifier) that improves accuracy to 99.25%.31

Machine learning can learn the EKG features not only of a particular rhythm, but also of a particular disease. A fully convolutional neural network approach reached the performance of human cardiologists to detect MI.32 Machine learning also has the ability to extract underlying EKG features in cases, such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Primary T wave inversion not secondary to QRS abnormalities was found to be associated with a higher risk of sudden cardiac death.33

Innovations to Improve Bystander CPR

Lay persons who learn CPR by a novel kiosk approach with an on-screen practice with feedback outperform those who learn CPR by video only.34 In the Netherlands, a simple method was tested to improve bystander defibrillation rates. A network of trained volunteers was available and notified via a text message alert system in the event of cardiac arrest. It involved a text message alert system for trained volunteers in the community. When a text message alert resulted in a trained volunteer responder, the recorded rhythm was more often shockable (59.9% versus 4.5%), suggesting a reduced response time, and survival to hospital discharge increased (27.1% versus 16% alive at discharge; OR 1.95; 95% CI [1.15–3.33]).35 Another application, Heartrunner, dispatches volunteer responders who accept an alert, although a small randomized clinical trial of the application did not find a significant difference in AED attachment given that the majority of AEDs were attached by lay volunteers.36

New Automated External Defibrillator Technologies

Multiple studies have used machine learning to detect shockable rhythms in AEDs.31,37–39 We have recently described the creation of a novel convolution neural network (CNN) to diagnose a shockable rhythm from a single-lead EKG in next-generation, miniaturized AEDs. The AED was designed for personal use in community settings.40 Our approach was to develop a 26,000 single-lead EKG dataset consisting of publicly available and patient care EKGs, which was used to train, validate, and test the performance of a CNN that conformed to the American Heart Association (AHA) criteria for performance. A six-layer CNN was developed, with five convolutional layers and one fully connected layer, and performance was tested on the hardware of the AED device itself. In both internal and external validation analyses, this CNN was found to have high accuracy even with varying levels of noise applied to EKGs to mimic muscle artifact, and to have better performance compared with individual physician EKG readers. Intended for use in the field during OHCA, the neural network can generate an output in 383 milliseconds. The input is an EKG strip 7 seconds long, therefore, added together, the AED has a total time of 7.383 seconds to reach a decision. Together, these results are adequate to improve the chain of survival of cardiac arrest.

Other advances include mobile applications that create an online map via crowdsourcing to enable a quick mobile search for the nearest AED when the time arises.10,41 One mobile application, PulsePoint, includes an AED registry added by users and a community of individuals who sign up for notification by location to nearby emergencies requiring CPR.41,42 In Stockholm, Sweden, researchers tested AED-equipped unmanned aerial systems, or drones, that were dispatched and found to be faster than emergency medical services.43,44

Public Health Innovations

The Dynamic AED Registry is authorized by the FDA to catalog each AED with a 2D matrix code that records its location and status, which are tracked using a smartphone and passed to a confidential online database in real time. Users are encouraged to scan the code after using the AED, and then they answer preset questions.9

Novel AEDs with improved machine learning techniques should be incorporated into public health emergency medical services systems of care. Key performance measures include recording the use of AEDs and regular service checks.

Corti is a Danish company that created a machine learning framework that listens to emergency phone calls, learning the words most often spoken in critical illness and the background noise accompanying it. When it detects cardiac arrest, it signals the emergency operator to advise the caller to begin chest compressions. While dispatchers recognized a cardiac arrest at an average of 54 seconds, Corti recognized it in 44 seconds. In addition, the model predicted cardiac arrest with a higher sensitivity as compared with medical dispatchers (84.1% versus 72.5%).26

The AHA aims to improve the use of AEDs through public access defibrillation programs that ensure that AEDs and trained lay rescuers are available. After primary training, 90% of volunteers retain competency in AED skills for up to 1 year.45 One of the major goals of the AHA is to improve public access defibrillation programs. Key recommendations for effective sites include planned and practised responses, ongoing training of lay rescuers, and links with local emergency medical services.46

In a landmark trial, the use of trained volunteers was capitalized upon by using a mobile-phone positioning system to dispatch them when an emergency occurred. This increased the rate of bystander-initiated CPR from 48% to 62%.47

Equitable Approaches to Reduce Disparities in OHCA

Unfortunately, there are significant disparities in OHCA.48 There is a gender disparity in CPR, with more men (45%) receiving public bystander CPR than women (39%).49 Black and Hispanic communities have significantly lower rates of bystander resuscitation, thought to be secondary to lower rates of CPR training.50 Although there are similar bystander CPR rates, Asian individuals have lower survival than white individuals.51 It is unknown whether disparities in comorbidity or post-resuscitation care exist for Asian versus white patients. There is also significant geographic variation among emergency medical service agencies, including response times and length of resuscitation.52 Systemwide improvement is needed to improve these disparities, focused on funding, training, and measuring success metrics.53

Figure 1: Data-driven, Technology-enabled System of Care

Article image

Proposing a Data-driven and Technology-enabled SCA System of Care

Despite the life-saving capabilities of defibrillation with AEDs, these devices are left unused during cardiac arrest. We propose a data-driven, technology-enabled system of care to improve outcomes of SCA (Figure 1). This involves machine learning algorithms to identify individuals at high risk, recognize emergencies, and diagnose rhythms. It requires new technology to make AEDs available where and when they are needed. Last, we need a public health framework to train volunteers and integrate the intelligence and innovation to save lives.

References

  1. Bækgaard JS, Viereck S, Møller TP, et al. The effects of public access defibrillation on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review of observational studies. Circulation 2017;136:954–65. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2023;147:e93–621. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Srinivasan NT, Schilling RJ. Sudden cardiac death and arrhythmias. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2018;7:111–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Kragholm K, Wissenberg M, Mortensen RN, et al. Bystander efforts and 1-year outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1737–47. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Weisfeldt ML, Everson-Stewart S, Sitlani C, et al. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias after cardiac arrest in public versus at home. N Engl J Med 2011;364:313–21. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. AED Superstore. AED Superstore. 2024. https://www.aedsuperstore.com/ (accessed December 19, 2023).
  7. DeLuca LA, Simpson A, Beskind D, et al. Analysis of automated external defibrillator device failures reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Ann Emerg Med 2012;59:103–11. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Cobb LA, Fahrenbruch CE, Olsufka M, Copass MK. Changing incidence of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation, 1980–2000. JAMA 2002;288:3008–13. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Elrod JB, Merchant R, Daya M, et al. Public health surveillance of automated external defibrillators in the USA: protocol for the dynamic automated external defibrillator registry study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014902. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Merchant RM, Asch DA. Can you find an AED if a life depends on it? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:241–3. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Field ME, Page RL. The right place at the right time: optimizing automated external defibrillator placement in the community. Circulation 2017;135:1120–2. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. El Asmar A, Dakessian A, Bachir R, El Sayed M. Out of hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: impact of weekdays vs weekends admission on survival to hospital discharge. Resuscitation 2019;143:29–34. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Bagai A, McNally BF, Al-Khatib SM, et al. Temporal differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and survival. Circulation 2013;128:2595–602. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Telec W, Baszko A, Dąbrowski M, et al. Automated external defibrillator use in public places: a study of acquisition time. Kardiol Pol 2018;76:181–5. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Roccia WD, Modic PE, Cuddy MA. Automated external defibrillator use among the general population.J Dent Educ 2003;67:1355–61. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Zijlstra JA, Bekkers LE, Hulleman M, et al. Automated external defibrillator and operator performance in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2017;118:140–6. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Lee Y, Kwon JM, Lee Y, et al. Deep learning in the medical domain: predicting cardiac arrest using deep learning. Acute Crit Care 2018;33:117–20. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Kwon J, Lee Y, Lee Y, et al. An algorithm based on deep learning for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e008678. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Bhattacharya M, Lu DY, Kudchadkar SM, et al. Identifying ventricular arrhythmias and their predictors by applying machine learning methods to electronic health records in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM-VAr-risk model). Am J Cardiol 2019;123:1681–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Tomaselli Muensterman E, Tisdale JE. Predictive analytics for identification of patients at risk for QT interval prolongation: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy 2018;38:813–21. 
    Crossref
  21. Panahiazar M, Taslimitehrani V, Pereira N, Pathak J. Using EHRs and machine learning for heart failure survival analysis. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015;216:40–4.
    PubMed
  22. Johnson KW, Torres Soto J, Glicksberg BS, et al. Artificial intelligence in cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:2668–79. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Roopa CK, Harish BS. A survey on various machine learning approaches for ECG analysis. Int J Comput Appl 2017;163:25–33. 
    Crossref
  24. Lyon A, Mincholé A, Martínez JP, et al. Computational techniques for ECG analysis and interpretation in light of their contribution to medical advances. J R Soc Interface 2018;15:20170821. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Kim JH, Choi A, Kim MJ, et al. Development of a machine-learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest for emergency department patients using a nationwide database. Sci Rep 2022;12:21797. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Blomberg SN, Folke F, Ersbøll AK, et al. Machine learning as a supportive tool to recognize cardiac arrest in emergency calls. Resuscitation 2019;138:322–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Lee H, Yang HL, Ryu HG, et al. Real-time machine learning model to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest using heart rate variability in ICU. NPJ Digit Med 2023;6:215. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Hannun AY, Rajpurkar P, Haghpanahi M, et al. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection and classification in ambulatory electrocardiograms using a deep neural network. Nat Med 2019;25:65–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Li Q, Rajagopalan C, Clifford GD. Ventricular fibrillation and tachycardia classification using a machine learning approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2014;61:1607–13. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Mjahad A, Rosado-Muñoz A, Bataller-Mompeán M, et al. Ventricular fibrillation and tachycardia detection from surface ECG using time-frequency representation images as input dataset for machine learning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2017;141:119–27. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Nguyen MT, Nguyen BV, Kim K. Deep feature learning for sudden cardiac arrest detection in automated external defibrillators. Sci Rep 2018;8:17196. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Strodthoff N, Strodthoff C. Detecting and interpreting myocardial infarction using fully convolutional neural networks. Physiol Meas 2019;40:015001. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Lyon A, Ariga R, Mincholé A, et al. Distinct ECG phenotypes identified in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using machine learning associate with arrhythmic risk markers. Front Physiol 2018;9:213. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Heard DG, Andresen KH, Guthmiller KM, et al. Hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation education: a comparison of on-screen with compression feedback, classroom, and video education. Ann Emerg Med 2019;73:599–609. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Pijls RWM, Nelemans PJ, Rahel BM, Gorgels APM. A text message alert system for trained volunteers improves out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. Resuscitation 2016;105:182–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Berglund E, Hollenberg J, Jonsson M, et al. Effect of smartphone dispatch of volunteer responders on automated external defibrillators and out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: the SAMBA randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2023;8:81–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Krasteva V, Ménétré S, Didon J-P, Jekova I. Fully convolutional deep neural networks with optimized hyperparameters for detection of shockable and non-shockable rhythms. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:2875. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Jekova I, Krasteva V. Optimization of end-to-end convolutional neural networks for analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythms during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Sensors (Basel) 2021;21:4105. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Nasimi F, Yazdchi M. LDIAED: a lightweight deep learning algorithm implementable on automated external defibrillators. PLoS One 2022;17:e0264405. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Shen CP, Freed BC, Walter DP, et al. Convolution neural network algorithm for shockable arrhythmia classification within a digitally connected automated external defibrillator. J Am Heart Assoc 2023;12:e026974. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. PulsePoint. Next Generation AED Registry. 2024. https://www.pulsepoint.org/pulsepoint-aed (accessed December 19, 2023).
  42. PulsePoint. Next Generation AED Management. 2024. https://www.pulsepoint.org/pulsepoint-respond (accessed December 19, 2023).
  43. Claesson A, Bäckman A, Ringh M, et al. Time to delivery of an automated external defibrillator using a drone for simulated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests vs emergency medical services. JAMA 2017;317:2332–4. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Boutilier JJ, Brooks SC, Janmohamed A, et al. Optimizing a drone network to deliver automated external defibrillators. Circulation 2017;135:2454–65. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Christenson J, Nafziger S, Compton S, et al. The effect of time on CPR and automated external defibrillator skills in the Public Access Defibrillation Trial. Resuscitation 2007;74:52–62. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Haskell SE, Post M, Cram P, Atkins DL. Community public access sites: compliance with American Heart Association recommendations. Resuscitation 2009;80:854–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Ringh M, Rosenqvist M, Hollenberg J, et al. Mobile-phone dispatch of laypersons for CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2316–25. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Monlezun DJ, Samura AT, Patel RS, et al. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: artificial intelligence-augmented propensity score and geospatial cohort analysis of 3,952 patients. Cardiol Res Pract 2021;2021:3180987. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Blewer AL, McGovern SK, Schmicker RH, et al. Gender disparities among adult recipients of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the public. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2018;11:e004710. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Anderson ML, Cox M, Al-Khatib SM, et al. Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in the United States. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:194–201. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Gupta K, Raj R, Asaki SY, et al. Comparison of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes between Asian and white individuals in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 2023;12:e030087. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Garcia RA, Girotra S, Jones PG, et al. Variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival across emergency medical service agencies. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2022;15:e008755. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. American Heart Association. Reducing disparities for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. 2021. https://cpr.heart.org/-/media/CPR-Files/Resus-Science/Resuscitation-Health-Equity/OHCA-Disparties-Toolkit-421-AHA--FINAL.pdf (accessed December 19, 2023).
  54. Linh TH, Osowski S, Stodolski M. On-line heart beat recognition using Hermite polynomials and neuro-fuzzy network. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2003;52:1224–31. 
    Crossref
  55. Özbay Y, Ceylan R, Karlik B. A fuzzy clustering neural network architecture for classification of ECG arrhythmias. Comput Biol Med 2006;36:376–88. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Pourbabaee B, Lucas C. Automatic detection and prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation based on analyzing ECG signal feature classification methods. 2008 Cairo International Biomedical Engineering Conference, Cairo, Egypt 2008;1–4. 
    Crossref
  57. Ceylan R, Özbay Y, Karlik B. A novel approach for classification of ECG arrhythmias: type-2 fuzzy clustering neural network. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36:6721–6. 
    Crossref
  58. Zhang Q, Chen X, Fang Z, Xia S. False arrhythmia alarm reduction in the intensive care unit using data fusion and machine learning. IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), Las Vegas, NV, US 2016;232–5. 
    Crossref