Jess D Tate1, Thomas A Pilcher2, Kedar K Aras3, Brett M Burton3, Rob S MacLeod3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: jess@sci.utah.edu. 2. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously developed a computational model to aid clinicians in positioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), especially in the case of abnormal anatomies that commonly arise in pediatric cases. We have validated the model clinically on the body surface; however, validation within the volume of the heart is required to establish complete confidence in the model and improve its use in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use an animal model and thoracic phantom to record the ICD potential field within the heart and on the torso to validate our defibrillation simulation system. METHODS: We recorded defibrillator shock potentials from an ICD suspended together with an animal heart in a human-shaped torso tank and compared them with simulated values. We also compared the scaled distribution threshold, an analog to the defibrillation threshold, calculated from the measured and simulated electric fields within the myocardium. RESULTS: ICD potentials recorded on the tank and cardiac surface and within the myocardium agreed well with those predicted by the simulation. A quantitative comparison of the recorded and simulated potentials yielded a mean correlation of 0.94 and a relative error of 19.1%. The simulation can also predict scaled distribution thresholds similar to those calculated from the measured potential fields. CONCLUSION: We found that our simulation could predict potential fields with high correlation with the measured values within the heart and on the torso surface. These results support the use of this model for the optimization of ICD placements.
BACKGROUND: We previously developed a computational model to aid clinicians in positioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), especially in the case of abnormal anatomies that commonly arise in pediatric cases. We have validated the model clinically on the body surface; however, validation within the volume of the heart is required to establish complete confidence in the model and improve its use in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use an animal model and thoracic phantom to record the ICD potential field within the heart and on the torso to validate our defibrillation simulation system. METHODS: We recorded defibrillator shock potentials from an ICD suspended together with an animal heart in a human-shaped torso tank and compared them with simulated values. We also compared the scaled distribution threshold, an analog to the defibrillation threshold, calculated from the measured and simulated electric fields within the myocardium. RESULTS:ICD potentials recorded on the tank and cardiac surface and within the myocardium agreed well with those predicted by the simulation. A quantitative comparison of the recorded and simulated potentials yielded a mean correlation of 0.94 and a relative error of 19.1%. The simulation can also predict scaled distribution thresholds similar to those calculated from the measured potential fields. CONCLUSION: We found that our simulation could predict potential fields with high correlation with the measured values within the heart and on the torso surface. These results support the use of this model for the optimization of ICD placements.
Authors: Fayez Bokhari; David Newman; Mary Greene; Victoria Korley; Iqwal Mangat; Paul Dorian Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giuseppe Ristagno; Tong Wang; Wanchun Tang; Shijie Sun; Carlos Castillo; Max Harry Weil Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: C I Berul; J K Triedman; J Forbess; L M Bevilacqua; M E Alexander; D Dahlby; J O Gilkerson; E P Walsh Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Darrell J Swenson; Sarah E Geneser; Jeroen G Stinstra; Robert M Kirby; Rob S MacLeod Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Matthew Jolley; Jeroen Stinstra; Steve Pieper; Rob Macleod; Dana H Brooks; Frank Cecchin; John K Triedman Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Martin J Bishop; Patrick M Boyle; Gernot Plank; Donald G Welsh; Edward J Vigmond Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Nadine K Wäßnig; Michael Günther; Silvio Quick; Christian Pfluecke; Fabian Rottstädt; Steven J Szymkiewicz; Steven Ringquist; Ruth H Strasser; Uwe Speiser Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jess D Tate; Shireen Elhabian; Nejib Zemzemi; Wilson W Good; Peter van Dam; Dana H Brooks; Rob S MacLeod Journal: Comput Cardiol (2010) Date: 2021-09