BACKGROUND: Repolarization dispersion (Rd) is frequently mentioned as a predictor of cardiac abnormalities. We present a new measure of Rd based on the root-mean-square (RMS) curve of an ECG lead set and compare its performance with that of the commonly used QT dispersion (QTd) measure with the use of recovery times measured from directly recorded canine electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using isolated, perfused canine hearts suspended in a torso-shaped electrolytic tank, we simultaneously recorded electrograms from 64 epicardial sites and ECGs from 192 "body surface" sites. RMS curves were derived from 4 lead sets: epicardial, body surface, precordial, and a 6-lead optimal set. Repolarization was altered by changing cycle length, temperature, and activation sequence. Rd, calculated directly from recovery times of the 64 epicardial potentials, was then compared with the width of the T wave of the RMS curve and with QTd for each of these 4 lead sets. The correlation between T-wave width and Rd for each lead set, respectively, was epicardium, 0.91; body surface, 0.84; precordial, 0.72; and optimal leads, 0.81. The correlation between QTd and Rd for each lead set was epicardium, 0.46; body surface, 0.47; precordial, 0.17; and optimal leads, 0.11. CONCLUSIONS: RMS curve analysis provides an accurate method of estimating Rd from the body surface. In contrast, QTd analysis provides a poor estimate of Rd.
BACKGROUND: Repolarization dispersion (Rd) is frequently mentioned as a predictor of cardiac abnormalities. We present a new measure of Rd based on the root-mean-square (RMS) curve of an ECG lead set and compare its performance with that of the commonly used QT dispersion (QTd) measure with the use of recovery times measured from directly recorded canine electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using isolated, perfused canine hearts suspended in a torso-shaped electrolytic tank, we simultaneously recorded electrograms from 64 epicardial sites and ECGs from 192 "body surface" sites. RMS curves were derived from 4 lead sets: epicardial, body surface, precordial, and a 6-lead optimal set. Repolarization was altered by changing cycle length, temperature, and activation sequence. Rd, calculated directly from recovery times of the 64 epicardial potentials, was then compared with the width of the T wave of the RMS curve and with QTd for each of these 4 lead sets. The correlation between T-wave width and Rd for each lead set, respectively, was epicardium, 0.91; body surface, 0.84; precordial, 0.72; and optimal leads, 0.81. The correlation between QTd and Rd for each lead set was epicardium, 0.46; body surface, 0.47; precordial, 0.17; and optimal leads, 0.11. CONCLUSIONS: RMS curve analysis provides an accurate method of estimating Rd from the body surface. In contrast, QTd analysis provides a poor estimate of Rd.
Authors: Pedro David Arini; Fabricio Hugo Baglivo; Juan Pablo Martínez; Pablo Laguna Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Larisa G Tereshchenko; Lichy Han; Alan Cheng; Joseph E Marine; David D Spragg; Sunil Sinha; Darshan Dalal; Hugh Calkins; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Gerardo Nigro; Vincenzo Russo; Anna Rago; Andrea Antonio Papa; Nadia Della Cioppa; Federica Di Meo; Antonio Corcione; Giuseppe Caianiello; Maria Giovanna Russo; Raffaele Calabrò Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: David R Sutherland; Quan Ni; Rob S MacLeod; Robert L Lux; Bonnie B Punske Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Nathan M Segerson; Sheldon E Litwin; Marcos Daccarett; T Scott Wall; Mohamed H Hamdan; Robert L Lux Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2007-10-06 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Vladimir Shusterman; Prashant Nagpal; Daniel Thedens; Xiaodong Zhu; Daniel S Matasic; Jin-Young Yoon; Gina Morgan; Stacy Hoffman; Barry London Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2019-05-16