Matthijs J M Cluitmans1, Pietro Bonizzi2, Joël M H Karel2, Marco Das3, Bas L J H Kietselaer4, Monique M J de Jong5, Frits W Prinzen6, Ralf L M Peeters2, Ronald L Westra2, Paul G A Volders7. 1. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Data Science and Knowledge Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Data Science and Knowledge Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Physiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: p.volders@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive reconstructions of epicardial potentials, electrograms, activation and recovery isochrones, and beat origins by simultaneously performing electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) and invasive epicardial electrography in intact animals. BACKGROUND: Noninvasive imaging of electrical potentials at the epicardium, known as ECGI, is increasingly applied in patients to assess normal and abnormal cardiac electrical activity. METHODS: Body-surface potentials and epicardial potentials were recorded in normal anesthetized dogs. Computed tomography scanning provided a torso-heart geometry that was used to reconstruct epicardial potentials from body-surface potentials. RESULTS: Electrogram reconstructions attained a moderate accuracy compared with epicardial recordings (median correlation coefficient: 0.71), but with considerable variation (interquartile range: 0.36 to 0.86). This variation could be explained by a spatial mismatch (overall resolution was <20 mm) that was most apparent in regions with electrographic transition. More accurate derivation of activation times (Pearson R: 0.82), recovery times (R: 0.73), and the origin of paced beats (median error: 10 mm; interquartile range: 7 to 17 mm) was achieved by a spatiotemporal approach that incorporates the characteristics of the respective electrogram and neighboring electrograms. Reconstruction of beats from repeated single-site pacing showed a stable localization of origin. Cardiac motion, currently ignored in ECGI, correlates negatively with reconstruction accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: ECGI shows a decent median accuracy, but variability in electrogram reconstruction can be sizable. At present, therefore, clinical interpretations of ECGI should not be made on the basis of single electrograms only. Incorporating local spatiotemporal characteristics allows for accurate reconstruction of epicardial activation and recovery patterns, and beat origin localization to a 10-mm precision. Even more reliable interpretations are expected when the influences of cardiac motion are accounted for in ECGI.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive reconstructions of epicardial potentials, electrograms, activation and recovery isochrones, and beat origins by simultaneously performing electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) and invasive epicardial electrography in intact animals. BACKGROUND: Noninvasive imaging of electrical potentials at the epicardium, known as ECGI, is increasingly applied in patients to assess normal and abnormal cardiac electrical activity. METHODS: Body-surface potentials and epicardial potentials were recorded in normal anesthetized dogs. Computed tomography scanning provided a torso-heart geometry that was used to reconstruct epicardial potentials from body-surface potentials. RESULTS: Electrogram reconstructions attained a moderate accuracy compared with epicardial recordings (median correlation coefficient: 0.71), but with considerable variation (interquartile range: 0.36 to 0.86). This variation could be explained by a spatial mismatch (overall resolution was <20 mm) that was most apparent in regions with electrographic transition. More accurate derivation of activation times (Pearson R: 0.82), recovery times (R: 0.73), and the origin of paced beats (median error: 10 mm; interquartile range: 7 to 17 mm) was achieved by a spatiotemporal approach that incorporates the characteristics of the respective electrogram and neighboring electrograms. Reconstruction of beats from repeated single-site pacing showed a stable localization of origin. Cardiac motion, currently ignored in ECGI, correlates negatively with reconstruction accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: ECGI shows a decent median accuracy, but variability in electrogram reconstruction can be sizable. At present, therefore, clinical interpretations of ECGI should not be made on the basis of single electrograms only. Incorporating local spatiotemporal characteristics allows for accurate reconstruction of epicardial activation and recovery patterns, and beat origin localization to a 10-mm precision. Even more reliable interpretations are expected when the influences of cardiac motion are accounted for in ECGI.
Authors: Andrew Grace; Stephan Willems; Christian Meyer; Atul Verma; Patrick Heck; Min Zhu; Xinwei Shi; Derrick Chou; Lam Dang; Christoph Scharf; Günter Scharf; Graydon Beatty Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2019-03-21
Authors: Çağla Özsoy; Ali Özbek; Michael Reiss; Xosé Luís Deán-Ben; Daniel Razansky Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Brian Zenger; Wilson W Good; Jake A Bergquist; Brett M Burton; Jess D Tate; Leo Berkenbile; Vikas Sharma; Rob S MacLeod Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Pavel Jurak; Laura R Bear; Uyên Châu Nguyên; Ivo Viscor; Petr Andrla; Filip Plesinger; Josef Halamek; Vlastimil Vondra; Emma Abell; Matthijs J M Cluitmans; Rémi Dubois; Karol Curila; Pavel Leinveber; Frits W Prinzen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.379