| Literature DB >> 30618838 |
Gabriel Balaban1, Brian P Halliday2, Caroline Mendonca Costa1, Wenjia Bai3, Bradley Porter1,4, Christopher A Rinaldi4, Gernot Plank5, Daniel Rueckert3, Sanjay K Prasad2,6, Martin J Bishop1.
Abstract
Aims: Patients who present with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) and enhancement on late gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-CMR), are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Further risk stratification of these patients based on LGE-CMR may be improved through better understanding of fibrosis microstructure. Our aim is to examine variations in fibrosis microstructure based on LGE imaging, and quantify the effect on reentry inducibility and mechanism. Furthermore, we examine the relationship between transmural activation time differences and reentry. Methods andEntities:
Keywords: arrhythmia (any); computational modeling; dilated cardiaomypothy; electrophysiology; late gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; non-ischemic cardiomiopathy; reentry; ventricular tachycardia (VT)
Year: 2018 PMID: 30618838 PMCID: PMC6305754 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1Computational model creation from an LGE-CMR image. (A) LGE-CMR image. (B) Image segmentation into enhanced and non-enhanced myocardium. (C) LV myocardial pixel intensity histogram and example intensity to fibrosis probability mapping. (D) Computational model with LGE intensities registered to image. (E) Zoomed in view of simulated fibrosis micro-structure. (F) Four conduction slowing zones in LGE. (G) Rule-based circumferential fibers.
Figure 2Simulated fibrosis micro-structures with varying type and density. Black lines are separating edges through which current cannot cross, whereas white areas are electrically inactive and non-conducting.
Figure 3Examples of three canonical reentry mechanisms. (Top) Paths of reentrant circuits in green, with blue boxes indicating zoomed-in areas used for the voltage maps below. (Middle) Transmembrane voltage maps, with time (ms) after the final stimulus displayed in the top left corner. (Bottom) Pseudo-electrograms measured 4 cm anterior to the geometry showing 1s of electrical activity.
Figure 4Incidence of reentry mechanisms by fibrosis texture, density, and with normal and reduced conductivity in the LGE.
Figure 5Activation maps around the LGE for three types of fibrosis micro-structure. Red lines are isochrones spaced at 10 ms intervals. The stimulus site is shown in green in the fibrosis-free control model (bottom row).
Figure 6(A) Mean (solid line) and standard deviation (transparent area) of trans-septal activation time (TAT) for four coupling intervals (CI) vs. fibrosis density, fibrosis type, and LGE conductivity. The reentry incidence is overlaid in red. (B) Segmented LGE-CMR image with locations of stimulus and TAT recording site.
Figure 7ROC curves for predicting reentry inducibility based on transmural activation times (TAT). TAT500 and TAT210 are the transmural activation times with 500 and 210 ms coupling intervals respectively, while ΔTAT is the difference. The green dot shows the point of maximum sensitivity and specificity. AUC stands for area under curve.
Figure 8Effect of pacing location on transmural activation times and reentry incidence. Transmural activation times are given as a mean (solid line) and standard deviation (transparent area) for four coupling intervals (CI), taken over 10 random realizations of each fibrosis density. The reentry incidence is overlaid in red for comparison. All results were obtained with replacement fibrosis texture and reduced conductivity. The results for site 1 are the same as in Figure 6 (top right), whereas sites 2–5 are new locations shown for comparison.