BACKGROUND: The presence of epicardial fat can confound the quantification of scar during transpericardial electroanatomic mapping. The electrogram (EGM) characteristics of epicardial fat have not been systematically compared with infarct scar using gross and histopathological analysis as a gold standard. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the EGM characteristics of epicardial fat with infarct scar. METHODS: A closed-chest infarction was created in 40-50 kg pigs by occlusion of the circumflex artery for 150 minutes using an angioplasty balloon. This artery was chosen to minimize any potential overlap of epicardial fat with infarct and to spare any septal involvement. After 4-12 weeks of infarct healing, epicardial mapping was performed. EGMs in low-voltage regions (<1.5 mV) were analyzed, and bipolar amplitude, duration, number of deflections, and the presence of late potentials were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired t-test and chi(2) analysis. Gross and histopathological examination was used to confirm areas of fat and infarct scar. RESULTS: Seven porcine hearts were analyzed after high-density epicardial mapping (364 +/- 92 points) was performed 48 +/- 19 days after infarction. The mean bipolar EGM amplitude was similar in fat and scar (0.77 +/- 0.34 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.38 mV; P = not significant). The mean EGM duration was longer in scar than in fat (68.8 +/- 18.9 vs. 50.1 +/- 11.6 ms; P <.0001) and exhibited more fractionation (8.5 +/- 3.1 vs. 4.7 +/- 1.8 deflections; P <.0001). The presence of late potentials was 99% specific for scar. Further, areas of fat >4 mm in thickness registered low-voltage bipolar EGMs. CONCLUSION: Scar from healed myocardial infarction exhibits more fractionation and longer EGM duration when compared with fat. Late potentials are highly specific for locating infarct scars. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The presence of epicardial fat can confound the quantification of scar during transpericardial electroanatomic mapping. The electrogram (EGM) characteristics of epicardial fat have not been systematically compared with infarctscar using gross and histopathological analysis as a gold standard. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the EGM characteristics of epicardial fat with infarctscar. METHODS: A closed-chest infarction was created in 40-50 kg pigs by occlusion of the circumflex artery for 150 minutes using an angioplasty balloon. This artery was chosen to minimize any potential overlap of epicardial fat with infarct and to spare any septal involvement. After 4-12 weeks of infarct healing, epicardial mapping was performed. EGMs in low-voltage regions (<1.5 mV) were analyzed, and bipolar amplitude, duration, number of deflections, and the presence of late potentials were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired t-test and chi(2) analysis. Gross and histopathological examination was used to confirm areas of fat and infarctscar. RESULTS: Seven porcine hearts were analyzed after high-density epicardial mapping (364 +/- 92 points) was performed 48 +/- 19 days after infarction. The mean bipolar EGM amplitude was similar in fat and scar (0.77 +/- 0.34 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.38 mV; P = not significant). The mean EGM duration was longer in scar than in fat (68.8 +/- 18.9 vs. 50.1 +/- 11.6 ms; P <.0001) and exhibited more fractionation (8.5 +/- 3.1 vs. 4.7 +/- 1.8 deflections; P <.0001). The presence of late potentials was 99% specific for scar. Further, areas of fat >4 mm in thickness registered low-voltage bipolar EGMs. CONCLUSION:Scar from healed myocardial infarction exhibits more fractionation and longer EGM duration when compared with fat. Late potentials are highly specific for locating infarct scars. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; John L Sapp; Andrew P Selwyn; Gregory Couper; Laurence M Epstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J M de Bakker; F J van Capelle; M J Janse; S Tasseron; J T Vermeulen; N de Jonge; J R Lahpor Journal: Circulation Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J M de Bakker; F J van Capelle; M J Janse; S Tasseron; J T Vermeulen; N de Jonge; J R Lahpor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; David Wrobleski; Christopher Houghtaling; Mark E Josephson; Jeremy N Ruskin Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Takeshi Sasaki; James Mudd; Charles Steenbergen; Menekhem M Zviman; Christopher F Miller; Saman Nazarian Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Takeshi Sasaki; Christopher F Miller; Rozann Hansford; Juemin Yang; Brian S Caffo; Menekhem M Zviman; Charles A Henrikson; Joseph E Marine; David Spragg; Alan Cheng; Harikrishna Tandri; Sunil Sinha; Aravindan Kolandaivelu; Stefan L Zimmerman; David A Bluemke; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Henry R Halperin; Saman Nazarian Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2012-11-13
Authors: Shuanglun Xie; Benoit Desjardins; Maciej Kubala; Jackson Liang; Jiandu Yang; Rob J van der Geest; Robert Schaller; Michael Riley; David Callans; Erica Zado; Francis Marchlinski; Saman Nazarian Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Brian P Betensky; Marc W Deyell; Wendy S Tzou; Erica S Zado; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-08-12 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Takeshi Sasaki; Christopher F Miller; Rozann Hansford; Vadim Zipunnikov; Menekhem M Zviman; Joseph E Marine; David Spragg; Alan Cheng; Harikrishna Tandri; Sunil Sinha; Aravindan Kolandaivelu; Stefan L Zimmerman; David A Bluemke; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger; Henry R Halperin; Hugh Calkins; Saman Nazarian Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-11-14