OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the value of left ventricular (LV) endocardial unipolar electroanatomical mapping (EAM) in identifying irreversibility of LV systolic dysfunction in patients with left ventricular nonischemic cardiomyopathy (LVCM). BACKGROUND: Identifying irreversibility of LVCM would be helpful but cannot be reliably accomplished by bipolar EAM or cardiac magnetic resonance identification of macroscopic scar. METHODS: Detailed endocardial LV EAM was performed in 3 groups: 1) 24 patients with irreversible LVCM (I-LVCM) but with no or minimal macroscopic scar (<15% LV surface) evidenced on bipolar voltage EAM and/or cardiac magnetic resonance; 2) 14 patients with reversible ventricular premature depolarization-mediated LVCM (R-LVCM); and 3) 17 patients with structurally normal hearts. LV endocardial unipolar electrogram amplitude and area of unipolar amplitude abnormality were defined after excluding macroscopic scar. RESULTS: Unipolar amplitude differed in the 3 groups: median of 7.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.5 to 9.7) mV in I-LVCM group, 13.2 (IQR: 10.4 to 16.2) mV in R-LVCM group, and 16.3 (IQR: 13.6 to 19.8) mV in structurally normal hearts group (p < 0.001). Areas of unipolar abnormality represented a large proportion of total LV surface in I-LVCM, 64.7% (IQR: 47.5% to 75.9%) compared with R-LVCM, 5.2% (IQR: 0.0% to 19.1%) and structurally normal hearts, 0.1% (IQR: 0.0% to 0.9%), groups (p < 0.001). A unipolar abnormality area cutoff of 32% of total LV surface was 96% sensitive and 100% specific in identifying irreversible cardiomyopathy among patients with LV dysfunction (I-LVCM and R-LVCM), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed unipolar voltage mapping can identify irreversible myocardial dysfunction consistent with fibrosis, even in the absence of bipolar EAM or cardiac magnetic resonance abnormalities, and may serve as valuable prognostic tool in patients presenting with LVCM to facilitate clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the value of left ventricular (LV) endocardial unipolar electroanatomical mapping (EAM) in identifying irreversibility of LV systolic dysfunction in patients with left ventricular nonischemic cardiomyopathy (LVCM). BACKGROUND: Identifying irreversibility of LVCM would be helpful but cannot be reliably accomplished by bipolar EAM or cardiac magnetic resonance identification of macroscopic scar. METHODS: Detailed endocardial LV EAM was performed in 3 groups: 1) 24 patients with irreversible LVCM (I-LVCM) but with no or minimal macroscopic scar (<15% LV surface) evidenced on bipolar voltage EAM and/or cardiac magnetic resonance; 2) 14 patients with reversible ventricular premature depolarization-mediated LVCM (R-LVCM); and 3) 17 patients with structurally normal hearts. LV endocardial unipolar electrogram amplitude and area of unipolar amplitude abnormality were defined after excluding macroscopic scar. RESULTS: Unipolar amplitude differed in the 3 groups: median of 7.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.5 to 9.7) mV in I-LVCM group, 13.2 (IQR: 10.4 to 16.2) mV in R-LVCM group, and 16.3 (IQR: 13.6 to 19.8) mV in structurally normal hearts group (p < 0.001). Areas of unipolar abnormality represented a large proportion of total LV surface in I-LVCM, 64.7% (IQR: 47.5% to 75.9%) compared with R-LVCM, 5.2% (IQR: 0.0% to 19.1%) and structurally normal hearts, 0.1% (IQR: 0.0% to 0.9%), groups (p < 0.001). A unipolar abnormality area cutoff of 32% of total LV surface was 96% sensitive and 100% specific in identifying irreversible cardiomyopathy among patients with LV dysfunction (I-LVCM and R-LVCM), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed unipolar voltage mapping can identify irreversible myocardial dysfunction consistent with fibrosis, even in the absence of bipolar EAM or cardiac magnetic resonance abnormalities, and may serve as valuable prognostic tool in patients presenting with LVCM to facilitate clinical decision making.
Authors: Maciej Kubala; Shuanglun Xie; Pasquale Santangeli; Fermin C Garcia; Gregory E Supple; Robert D Schaller; Jackson J Liang; Rajeev K Pathak; Erica S Zado; Cory Tschabrunn; Jeffrey Arkles; David J Callans; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Daniel Steven; Jan-Hendrik van den Bruck; Jakob Lüker; Tobias Plenge; Arian Sultan Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2017-06
Authors: Bojan Vrtovec; Matjaz Sever; Mojca Jensterle; Gregor Poglajen; Andrej Janez; Nika Kravos; Gregor Zemljic; Marko Cukjati; Peter Cernelc; François Haddad; Joseph C Wu; Ulrich P Jorde Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Rakesh Gopinathannair; Susan P Etheridge; Francis E Marchlinski; Francis G Spinale; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Brian Olshansky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mojca Bervar; Mirta Kozelj; Gregor Poglajen; Matjaz Sever; Gregor Zemljic; Sabina Frljak; Marko Cukjati; Peter Cernelc; François Haddad; Bojan Vrtovec Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2017-03-11 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Sabina Frljak; Martina Jaklic; Gregor Zemljic; Andraz Cerar; Gregor Poglajen; Bojan Vrtovec Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.940