Konstantinos N Aronis1, Hiroshi Ashikaga2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: hashika1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy of focal impulse and rotor modulation on atrial fibrillation ablation. A potential explanation is inaccurate rotor localization from multiple rotors coexistence and a relatively large (9-11mm) inter-electrode distance (IED) of the multi-electrode basket catheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied a numerical model of cardiac action potential to reproduce one through seven rotors in a two-dimensional lattice. We estimated rotor location using phase singularity, Shannon entropy and dominant frequency. We then spatially downsampled the time series to create IEDs of 2-30mm. The error of rotor localization was measured with reference to the dynamics of phase singularity at the original spatial resolution (IED=1mm). IED has a significant impact on the error using all the methods. When only one rotor is present, the error increases exponentially as a function of IED. At the clinical IED of 10mm, the error is 3.8mm (phase singularity), 3.7mm (dominant frequency), and 11.8mm (Shannon entropy). When there are more than one rotors, the error of rotor localization increases 10-fold. The error based on the phase singularity method at the clinical IED of 10mm ranges from 30.0mm (two rotors) to 96.1mm (five rotors). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of error of rotor localization using a clinically available basket catheter, in the presence of multiple rotors might be high enough to impact the accuracy of targeting during AF ablation. Improvement of catheter design and development of high-density mapping catheters may improve clinical outcomes of FIRM-guided AF ablation.
BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy of focal impulse and rotor modulation on atrial fibrillation ablation. A potential explanation is inaccurate rotor localization from multiple rotors coexistence and a relatively large (9-11mm) inter-electrode distance (IED) of the multi-electrode basket catheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied a numerical model of cardiac action potential to reproduce one through seven rotors in a two-dimensional lattice. We estimated rotor location using phase singularity, Shannon entropy and dominant frequency. We then spatially downsampled the time series to create IEDs of 2-30mm. The error of rotor localization was measured with reference to the dynamics of phase singularity at the original spatial resolution (IED=1mm). IED has a significant impact on the error using all the methods. When only one rotor is present, the error increases exponentially as a function of IED. At the clinical IED of 10mm, the error is 3.8mm (phase singularity), 3.7mm (dominant frequency), and 11.8mm (Shannon entropy). When there are more than one rotors, the error of rotor localization increases 10-fold. The error based on the phase singularity method at the clinical IED of 10mm ranges from 30.0mm (two rotors) to 96.1mm (five rotors). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of error of rotor localization using a clinically available basket catheter, in the presence of multiple rotors might be high enough to impact the accuracy of targeting during AF ablation. Improvement of catheter design and development of high-density mapping catheters may improve clinical outcomes of FIRM-guided AF ablation.
Authors: Matthew J Gonzales; Kevin P Vincent; Wouter-Jan Rappel; Sanjiv M Narayan; Andrew D McCulloch Journal: Europace Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Natasja de Groot; Lisette van der Does; Ameeta Yaksh; Eva Lanters; Christophe Teuwen; Paul Knops; Pieter van de Woestijne; Jos Bekkers; Charles Kik; Ad Bogers; Maurits Allessie Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2016-05
Authors: Arne Defauw; Nele Vandersickel; Peter Dawyndt; Alexander V Panfilov Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Jonathan Chrispin; Esra Gucuk Ipek; Sohail Zahid; Adityo Prakosa; Mohammadali Habibi; David Spragg; Joseph E Marine; Hiroshi Ashikaga; John Rickard; Natalia A Trayanova; Stefan L Zimmerman; Vadim Zipunnikov; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Saman Nazarian Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Anand N Ganesan; Pawel Kuklik; Dennis H Lau; Anthony G Brooks; Mathias Baumert; Wei Wen Lim; Shivshankar Thanigaimani; Sachin Nayyar; Rajiv Mahajan; Jonathan M Kalman; Kurt C Roberts-Thomson; Prashanthan Sanders Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2012-12-23
Authors: Kalyanam Shivkumar; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; John D Hummel; John M Miller; Jonathan S Steinberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2012-11-06
Authors: Balvinder S Handa; Caroline H Roney; Charles Houston; Norman A Qureshi; Xinyang Li; David S Pitcher; Rasheda A Chowdhury; Phang Boon Lim; Emmanuel Dupont; Steven A Niederer; Chris D Cantwell; Nicholas S Peters; Fu Siong Ng Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.589