Maddalena Valinoti1, Claudio Fabbri2, Dario Turco3, Roberto Mantovan4, Antonio Pasini5, Cristiana Corsi6. 1. Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, via Risorgimento 2, 40123 Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: maddalena.valinoti2@unibo.it. 2. Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, via Risorgimento 2, 40123 Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: claudio.fabbri10@unibo.it. 3. Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, via Risorgimento 2, 40123 Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: dario.turco3@unibo.it. 4. Department of Cardiology, "S. Maria dei Battuti" Hospital, via Brigata Bisagno, 4, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.mantovan@aulss2.veneto.it. 5. Department of Radiology, "Bufalini" Hospital, Viale Ghirotti, 286, 47521 Cesena, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.pasini3@tin.it. 6. Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, via Risorgimento 2, 40123 Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: cristiana.corsi3@unibo.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an important and promising therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Optimization of patient selection and the availability of an accurate anatomical guide could improve RFA success rate. In this study we propose a unified, fully automated approach to build a 3D patient-specific left atrium (LA) model including pulmonary veins (PVs) in order to provide an accurate anatomical guide during RFA and without PVs in order to characterize LA volumetry and support patient selection for AF ablation. METHODS: Magnetic resonance data from twenty-six patients referred for AF RFA were processed applying an edge-based level set approach guided by a phase-based edge detector to obtain the 3D LA model with PVs. An automated technique based on the shape diameter function was designed and applied to remove PVs and compute LA volume. 3D LA models were qualitatively compared with 3D LA surfaces acquired during the ablation procedure. An expert radiologist manually traced the LA on MR images twice. LA surfaces from the automatic approach and manual tracing were compared by mean surface-to-surface distance. In addition, LA volumes were compared with volumes from manual segmentation by linear and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Qualitative comparison of 3D LA models showed several inaccuracies, in particular PVs reconstruction was not accurate and left atrial appendage was missing in the model obtained during RFA procedure. LA surfaces were very similar (mean surface-to-surface distance: 2.3±0.7mm). LA volumes were in excellent agreement (y=1.03x-1.4, r=0.99, bias=-1.37ml (-1.43%) SD=2.16ml (2.3%), mean percentage difference=1.3%±2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Results showed the proposed 3D patient-specific LA model with PVs is able to better describe LA anatomy compared to models derived from the navigation system, thus potentially improving electrograms and voltage information location and reducing fluoroscopic time during RFA. Quantitative assessment of LA volume derived from our 3D LA model without PVs is also accurate and may provide important information for patient selection for RFA.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an important and promising therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Optimization of patient selection and the availability of an accurate anatomical guide could improve RFA success rate. In this study we propose a unified, fully automated approach to build a 3D patient-specific left atrium (LA) model including pulmonary veins (PVs) in order to provide an accurate anatomical guide during RFA and without PVs in order to characterize LA volumetry and support patient selection for AF ablation. METHODS: Magnetic resonance data from twenty-six patients referred for AF RFA were processed applying an edge-based level set approach guided by a phase-based edge detector to obtain the 3D LA model with PVs. An automated technique based on the shape diameter function was designed and applied to remove PVs and compute LA volume. 3D LA models were qualitatively compared with 3D LA surfaces acquired during the ablation procedure. An expert radiologist manually traced the LA on MR images twice. LA surfaces from the automatic approach and manual tracing were compared by mean surface-to-surface distance. In addition, LA volumes were compared with volumes from manual segmentation by linear and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Qualitative comparison of 3D LA models showed several inaccuracies, in particular PVs reconstruction was not accurate and left atrial appendage was missing in the model obtained during RFA procedure. LA surfaces were very similar (mean surface-to-surface distance: 2.3±0.7mm). LA volumes were in excellent agreement (y=1.03x-1.4, r=0.99, bias=-1.37ml (-1.43%) SD=2.16ml (2.3%), mean percentage difference=1.3%±2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Results showed the proposed 3D patient-specific LA model with PVs is able to better describe LA anatomy compared to models derived from the navigation system, thus potentially improving electrograms and voltage information location and reducing fluoroscopic time during RFA. Quantitative assessment of LA volume derived from our 3D LA model without PVs is also accurate and may provide important information for patient selection for RFA.