Laura R Bear1, Oumayma Bouhamama2, Matthijs Cluitmans3, Josselin Duchateau4, Richard D Walton5, Emma Abell5, Charly Belterman6, Michel Haissaguerre4, Olivier Bernus5, Ruben Coronel6, Rémi Dubois5. 1. IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, F-33600 Pessac, Bordeaux, France; Université de Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. Electronic address: laura.bear@ihu-liryc.fr. 2. IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, F-33600 Pessac, Bordeaux, France; Université de Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; INRIA Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, Carmen team, Bordeaux, France. 3. CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht UMC, Maastricht, Netherlands. 4. IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, F-33600 Pessac, Bordeaux, France; Université de Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; Bordeaux University Hospital (CHU), Electrophysiology and Ablation Unit, F-33600 Pessac, France. 5. IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, F-33600 Pessac, Bordeaux, France; Université de Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. 6. IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, F-33600 Pessac, Bordeaux, France; Department of Experimental Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing clinical use of Electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI), it is imperative to understand the limits of this technique. The objective of this study is to evaluate a potential-based ECGI approach for activation and repolarization mapping in sinus rhythm. METHOD: Langendorff-perfused pig hearts were suspended in a human-shaped torso tank. Electrograms were recorded with a 108-electrode sock and ECGs with 256 electrodes embedded in the tank surface. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was developed in 4 hearts through ablation, and repolarization abnormalities in another 4 hearts through regional perfusion of dofetilide and pinacidil. Electrograms were noninvasively reconstructed and reconstructed activation and repolarization features were compared to those recorded. RESULTS: Visual consistency between ECGI and recorded activation and repolarization maps was high. While reconstructed repolarization times showed significantly more error than activation times quantitatively, patterns were reconstructed with a similar level of accuracy. The number of epicardial breakthrough sites was underestimated by ECGI and these were misplaced (>20 mm) in location. Likewise, ECGI reconstructed activation maps demonstrated artificial lines of block resulting from a W-shaped QRS waveform that were not present in recorded maps. Nevertheless, ECGI allowed identification of regions of abnormal repolarization reasonably accurately in terms of size, location and timing. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates a potential-based ECGI approach to noninvasively image activation and recovery in sinus rhythm. Despite inaccuracies in epicardial breakthroughs and lines of conduction block, other important clinical features such as regions of abnormal repolarization can be accurately derived making ECGI a valuable clinical tool.
BACKGROUND: With increasing clinical use of Electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI), it is imperative to understand the limits of this technique. The objective of this study is to evaluate a potential-based ECGI approach for activation and repolarization mapping in sinus rhythm. METHOD: Langendorff-perfused pig hearts were suspended in a human-shaped torso tank. Electrograms were recorded with a 108-electrode sock and ECGs with 256 electrodes embedded in the tank surface. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was developed in 4 hearts through ablation, and repolarization abnormalities in another 4 hearts through regional perfusion of dofetilide and pinacidil. Electrograms were noninvasively reconstructed and reconstructed activation and repolarization features were compared to those recorded. RESULTS: Visual consistency between ECGI and recorded activation and repolarization maps was high. While reconstructed repolarization times showed significantly more error than activation times quantitatively, patterns were reconstructed with a similar level of accuracy. The number of epicardial breakthrough sites was underestimated by ECGI and these were misplaced (>20 mm) in location. Likewise, ECGI reconstructed activation maps demonstrated artificial lines of block resulting from a W-shaped QRS waveform that were not present in recorded maps. Nevertheless, ECGI allowed identification of regions of abnormal repolarization reasonably accurately in terms of size, location and timing. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates a potential-based ECGI approach to noninvasively image activation and recovery in sinus rhythm. Despite inaccuracies in epicardial breakthroughs and lines of conduction block, other important clinical features such as regions of abnormal repolarization can be accurately derived making ECGI a valuable clinical tool.
Authors: Marianna Meo; Pietro Bonizzi; Laura R Bear; Matthijs Cluitmans; Emma Abell; Michel Haïssaguerre; Olivier Bernus; Rémi Dubois Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.566