Linwei Wang1, Omar A Gharbia1, Saman Nazarian2, B Milan Horácek3, John L Sapp3. 1. College of Computing and Information Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Room 74-1075, 102 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY, USA. 2. School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. School of Biomedical Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Abstract
Aims: Contact mapping is currently used to guide catheter ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) but usually provides incomplete assessment of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates. This study investigates the feasibility of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) in mapping scar substrates and re-entry circuits throughout the epicardium and endocardium. Methods and results: Four patients undergoing endocardial and epicardial mapping and ablation of scar-related VT had computed tomography scans and a 120-lead electrocardiograms, which were used to compute patient-specific ventricular epicardial and endocardial unipolar electrograms (CEGMs). Native-rhythm CEGMs were used to identify sites of myocardial scar and signal fractionation. Computed electrograms of induced VT were used to localize re-entrant circuits and exit sites. Results were compared to in vivo contact mapping data and epicardium-based ECGi solutions. During native rhythm, an average of 493 ± 18 CEGMs were analysed on each patient. Identified regions of scar and fractionation comprised, respectively, 25 ± 4% and 2 ± 1% of the ventricular surface area. Using a linear mixed-effects model grouped at the level of an individual patient, CEGM voltage and duration were significantly associated with contact bipolar voltage. During induced VT, the inclusion of endocardial layer in ECGi made it possible to identify two epicardial vs. three endocardial VT exit sites among five reconstructed re-entry circuits. Conclusion: Electrocardiographic imaging may be used to reveal sites of signal fractionation and to map short-lived VT circuits. Its capacity to map throughout epicardial and endocardial layers may improve the delineation of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates.
Aims: Contact mapping is currently used to guide catheter ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) but usually provides incomplete assessment of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates. This study investigates the feasibility of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) in mapping scar substrates and re-entry circuits throughout the epicardium and endocardium. Methods and results: Four patients undergoing endocardial and epicardial mapping and ablation of scar-related VT had computed tomography scans and a 120-lead electrocardiograms, which were used to compute patient-specific ventricular epicardial and endocardial unipolar electrograms (CEGMs). Native-rhythm CEGMs were used to identify sites of myocardial scar and signal fractionation. Computed electrograms of induced VT were used to localize re-entrant circuits and exit sites. Results were compared to in vivo contact mapping data and epicardium-based ECGi solutions. During native rhythm, an average of 493 ± 18 CEGMs were analysed on each patient. Identified regions of scar and fractionation comprised, respectively, 25 ± 4% and 2 ± 1% of the ventricular surface area. Using a linear mixed-effects model grouped at the level of an individual patient, CEGM voltage and duration were significantly associated with contact bipolar voltage. During induced VT, the inclusion of endocardial layer in ECGi made it possible to identify two epicardial vs. three endocardial VT exit sites among five reconstructed re-entry circuits. Conclusion: Electrocardiographic imaging may be used to reveal sites of signal fractionation and to map short-lived VT circuits. Its capacity to map throughout epicardial and endocardial layers may improve the delineation of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates.
Authors: Amir AbdelWahab; William Stevenson; Kara Thompson; Ratika Parkash; Christopher Gray; Martin Gardner; John Sapp Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2015-07-08
Authors: Linwei Wang; Fady Dawoud; Sai-Kit Yeung; Pengcheng Shi; Ken C L Wong; Huafeng Liu; Albert C Lardo Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Chengzong Han; Steven M Pogwizd; Cheryl R Killingsworth; Bin He Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Phillip S Cuculich; Matthew R Schill; Rojano Kashani; Sasa Mutic; Adam Lang; Daniel Cooper; Mitchell Faddis; Marye Gleva; Amit Noheria; Timothy W Smith; Dennis Hallahan; Yoram Rudy; Clifford G Robinson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brett M Burton; Jess D Tate; Burak Erem; Darrell J Swenson; Dafang F Wang; Michael Steffen; Dana H Brooks; Peter M van Dam; Rob S Macleod Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2011
Authors: John L Sapp; George A Wells; Ratika Parkash; William G Stevenson; Louis Blier; Jean-Francois Sarrazin; Bernard Thibault; Lena Rivard; Lorne Gula; Peter Leong-Sit; Vidal Essebag; Pablo B Nery; Stanley K Tung; Jean-Marc Raymond; Laurence D Sterns; George D Veenhuyzen; Jeff S Healey; Damian Redfearn; Jean-Francois Roux; Anthony S L Tang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Walther H W Schulze; Zhong Chen; Jatin Relan; Danila Potyagaylo; Martin W Krueger; Rashed Karim; Manav Sohal; Anoop Shetty; YingLiang Ma; Nicholas Ayache; Maxime Sermesant; Herve Delingette; Julian Bostock; Reza Razavi; Kawal S Rhode; Christopher A Rinaldi; Olaf Dössel Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Wilson W Good; Brian Zenger; Jake A Bergquist; Lindsay C Rupp; Karli Gillette; Nathan Angel; Derrick Chou; Gernot Plank; Rob S MacLeod Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 1.380
Authors: Jwala Dhamala; Pradeep Bajracharya; Hermenegild J Arevalo; John L Sapp; B Milan Horácek; Katherine C Wu; Natalia A Trayanova; Linwei Wang Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Matthijs Cluitmans; Dana H Brooks; Rob MacLeod; Olaf Dössel; María S Guillem; Peter M van Dam; Jana Svehlikova; Bin He; John Sapp; Linwei Wang; Laura Bear Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Erick A Perez-Alday; Kazi T Haq; David M German; Christopher Hamilton; Kyle Johnson; Francis Phan; Nichole M Rogovoy; Katherine Yang; Ashley Wirth; Jason A Thomas; Khidir Dalouk; Cristina Fuss; Maros Ferencik; Stephen Heitner; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.566