skip to main content
research-article

A Novel Emulation Model of the Cardiac Conduction System

Published:27 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Models of the cardiac conduction system are usually at two extremes: (1) high fidelity models with excellent precision but lacking a real-time response for emulation (hardware in the loop simulation); or (2) models amenable for emulation, but that do not exhibit appropriate dynamic response, which is necessary for arrhythmia susceptibility. We introduce two abstractions to remedy the situation. The first abstraction is a new cell model, which is a semi-linear hybrid automata. The proposed model is as computationally efficient as current state-of-the-art cell models amenable for emulation. Yet, unlike these models, it is also able to capture the dynamic response of the cardiac cell like the higher-fidelity models. The second abstraction is the use of smooth-tokens to develop a new path model, connecting cells, which is efficient in terms of memory consumption. Moreover, the memory requirements of the path model can be statically bounded and are invariant to the emulation step size. Results show that the proposed semi-linear abstraction for the cell reduces the execution time by up to 44%. Furthermore, the smooth-tokens based path model reduces the memory consumption by 40 times when compared to existing path models. This paves the way for the emulation of complex cardiac conduction systems, using hardware code-generators.

References

  1. Houssam Abbas, Kuk Jin Jiang, Zhihao Jiang, and Rahul Mangharam. 2016. Towards model checking of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 87--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Homa Alemzadeh, Ravishankar K. Iyer, Zbigniew Kalbarczyk, and Jai Raman. 2013. Analysis of safety-critical computer failures in medical devices. Security 8 Privacy, IEEE 11, 4 (2013), 14--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Allen, S. Andalam, P. Roop, A. Malik, M. Trew, and N. Patel. 2016. Modular code generation for emulating the electrical conduction system of the human heart. In 2016 Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE). 648--653. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Rajeev Alur, Costas Courcoubetis, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Pei-Hsin Ho. 1993. Hybrid automata: An algorithmic approach to the specification and verification of hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 209--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Rajeev Alur, Aditya Kanade, S. Ramesh, and K. C. Shashidhar. 2008. Symbolic analysis for improving simulation coverage of Simulink/Stateflow models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Software. ACM, 89--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Benoît Barbot, Marta Kwiatkowska, Alexandru Mereacre, and Nicola Paoletti. 2015. Estimation and verification of hybrid heart models for personalised medical and wearable devices. In 13th International Conference on Computational Methods in Systems Biology (CMSB 2015) (LNCS), Vol. 9308. Springer, 3--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Christopher Brooks, Edward A. Lee, David Lorenzetti, Thierry Nouidui, and Michael Wetter. 2015. Demo: CyPhySim — A cyber-physical systems simulator. In 18th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC 2015). ACM, 301--302. Presented as a demo at HSCC 2015, Seattle. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Taolue Chen, Marco Diciolla, Marta Kwiatkowska, and Alexandru Mereacre. 2014. Quantitative verification of implantable cardiac pacemakers over hybrid heart models. Information and Computation 236 (2014), 87--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jasmin Fisher and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2007. Executable cell biology. Nature Biotechnology 25, 11 (2007), 1239--1249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Michael R. Franz. 2003. The electrical restitution curve revisited. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 14 (2003), S140--S147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Radu Grosu, Gregory Batt, Flavio H. Fenton, James Glimm, Colas Le Guernic, Scott A. Smolka, and Ezio Bartocci. 2011. From cardiac cells to genetic regulatory networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 396--411. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. Huang, F. Vahid, and T. Givargis. 2011. A custom FPGA processor for physical model ordinary differential equation solving. IEEE Embedded Systems Letters 3, 4 (Dec 2011), 113--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Z. JIang, H. Abbas, K. Jang, and R. Mangharam. 2016. The challenges of high-confidence medical device software. IEEE Computer January Outlook 49, 1 (Jan. 2016), 34--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Z. Jiang, M. Pajic, and R. Mangharam. 2012. Cyber-physical modeling of implantable cardiac medical devices. Proc. IEEE 100, 1 (Jan 2012), 122--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhihao Jiang, Miroslav Pajic, Salar Moarref, Rajeev Alur, and Rahul Mangharam. 2014. Closed-loop verification of medical devices with model abstraction and refinement. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 16, 2 (Apr 2014), 191--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Kwiatkowska, H. Lea-Banks, A. Mereacre, and N. Paoletti. 2014. Formal modelling and validation of rate-adaptive pacemakers. In International Conference on Healthcare Informatics. 23--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Edward A. Lee, Mehrdad Niknami, Thierry S. Nouidui, and Michael Wetter. 2015. Modeling and simulating cyber-physical systems using CyPhySim. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Embedded Software. IEEE Press, 115--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. George Ralph Mines. 1913. On dynamic equilibrium in the heart. The Journal of Physiology 46, 4--5 (1913), 349--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J. B. Nolasco and Roger W. Dahlen. 1968. A graphic method for the study of alternation in cardiac action potentials. Journal of Applied Physiology 25, 2 (1968).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. L. Trew, B. H. Smail, J. Zhao. 2013. 3D impulse propagation in myocardium. Circulation Research 112 (2013), 834--848.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. N. A. Trayanova. 2014. Your personal virtual heart. IEEE Spectrum (November 2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. P. Ye, E. Entcheva, S. A. Smolka, and R. Grosu. 2008. Modelling excitable cells using cycle-linear hybrid automata. Systems Biology, IET 2, 1 (January 2008), 24--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Eugene Yip, Sidharta Andalam, Partha S. Roop, Avinash Malik, Mark Trew, Weiwei Ai, and Nitish Patel. 2016. Towards the emulation of the cardiac conduction system for pacemaker testing. CoRR 1603.05315 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Novel Emulation Model of the Cardiac Conduction System

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!