BACKGROUND: Electroanatomic mapping systems are used to support electrophysiology research. Data exported from these systems is stored in proprietary formats which are challenging to access and storage-space inefficient. No previous work has made available an open-source platform for parsing and interrogating this data in a standardized format. We therefore sought to develop a standardized, open-source data structure and associated computer code to store electroanatomic mapping data in a space-efficient and easily accessible manner. METHODS: A data structure was defined capturing the available anatomic and electrical data. OpenEP, implemented in MATLAB, was developed to parse and interrogate this data. Functions are provided for analysis of chamber geometry, activation mapping, conduction velocity mapping, voltage mapping, ablation sites, and electrograms as well as visualization and input/output functions. Performance benchmarking for data import and storage was performed. Data import and analysis validation was performed for chamber geometry, activation mapping, voltage mapping and ablation representation. Finally, systematic analysis of electrophysiology literature was performed to determine the suitability of OpenEP for contemporary electrophysiology research. RESULTS: The average time to parse clinical datasets was 400 ± 162 s per patient. OpenEP data was two orders of magnitude smaller than compressed clinical data (OpenEP: 20.5 ± 8.7 Mb, vs clinical: 1.46 ± 0.77 Gb). OpenEP-derived geometry metrics were correlated with the same clinical metrics (Area: R 2 = 0.7726, P < 0.0001; Volume: R 2 = 0.5179, P < 0.0001). Investigating the cause of systematic bias in these correlations revealed OpenEP to outperform the clinical platform in recovering accurate values. Both activation and voltage mapping data created with OpenEP were correlated with clinical values (mean voltage R 2 = 0.8708, P < 0.001; local activation time R 2 = 0.8892, P < 0.0001). OpenEP provides the processing necessary for 87 of 92 qualitatively assessed analysis techniques (95%) and 119 of 136 quantitatively assessed analysis techniques (88%) in a contemporary cohort of mapping studies. CONCLUSIONS: We present the OpenEP framework for evaluating electroanatomic mapping data. OpenEP provides the core functionality necessary to conduct electroanatomic mapping research. We demonstrate that OpenEP is both space-efficient and accurately representative of the original data. We show that OpenEP captures the majority of data required for contemporary electroanatomic mapping-based electrophysiology research and propose a roadmap for future development.
BACKGROUND: Electroanatomic mapping systems are used to support electrophysiology research. Data exported from these systems is stored in proprietary formats which are challenging to access and storage-space inefficient. No previous work has made available an open-source platform for parsing and interrogating this data in a standardized format. We therefore sought to develop a standardized, open-source data structure and associated computer code to store electroanatomic mapping data in a space-efficient and easily accessible manner. METHODS: A data structure was defined capturing the available anatomic and electrical data. OpenEP, implemented in MATLAB, was developed to parse and interrogate this data. Functions are provided for analysis of chamber geometry, activation mapping, conduction velocity mapping, voltage mapping, ablation sites, and electrograms as well as visualization and input/output functions. Performance benchmarking for data import and storage was performed. Data import and analysis validation was performed for chamber geometry, activation mapping, voltage mapping and ablation representation. Finally, systematic analysis of electrophysiology literature was performed to determine the suitability of OpenEP for contemporary electrophysiology research. RESULTS: The average time to parse clinical datasets was 400 ± 162 s per patient. OpenEP data was two orders of magnitude smaller than compressed clinical data (OpenEP: 20.5 ± 8.7 Mb, vs clinical: 1.46 ± 0.77 Gb). OpenEP-derived geometry metrics were correlated with the same clinical metrics (Area: R 2 = 0.7726, P < 0.0001; Volume: R 2 = 0.5179, P < 0.0001). Investigating the cause of systematic bias in these correlations revealed OpenEP to outperform the clinical platform in recovering accurate values. Both activation and voltage mapping data created with OpenEP were correlated with clinical values (mean voltage R 2 = 0.8708, P < 0.001; local activation time R 2 = 0.8892, P < 0.0001). OpenEP provides the processing necessary for 87 of 92 qualitatively assessed analysis techniques (95%) and 119 of 136 quantitatively assessed analysis techniques (88%) in a contemporary cohort of mapping studies. CONCLUSIONS: We present the OpenEP framework for evaluating electroanatomic mapping data. OpenEP provides the core functionality necessary to conduct electroanatomic mapping research. We demonstrate that OpenEP is both space-efficient and accurately representative of the original data. We show that OpenEP captures the majority of data required for contemporary electroanatomic mapping-based electrophysiology research and propose a roadmap for future development.
Authors: Nicholas Child; Richard H Clayton; Caroline H Roney; Jacob I Laughner; Allan Shuros; Petr Neuzil; Jan Petru; Tom Jackson; Bradley Porter; Julian Bostock; Steven A Niederer; Reza S Razavi; Christopher A Rinaldi; Peter Taggart; Matthew J Wright; Jaswinder Gill Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2018-06
Authors: Stephan Hohmann; Christoph Henkenberens; Christos Zormpas; Hans Christiansen; Johann Bauersachs; David Duncker; Christian Veltmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-21
Authors: Chrishan Joseph Nalliah; Geoffrey R Wong; Geoffrey Lee; Aleksandr Voskoboinik; Kirk Kee; Jeremy Goldin; Troy Watts; Dominik Linz; Daniel Wirth; Ramanathan Parameswaran; Hariharan Sugumar; Sandeep Prabhu; Alex McLellan; Han Ling; Stephen Joseph; Joseph B Morton; Peter Kistler; Prashanthan Sanders; Jonathan M Kalman Journal: Europace Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Nick W F Linton; Michael Koa-Wing; Darrel P Francis; Pipin Kojodjojo; Phang Boon Lim; Tushar V Salukhe; Zachary Whinnett; D Wyn Davies; Nicholas S Peters; Mark D O'Neill; Prapa Kanagaratnam Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Fiorenzo Gaita; Domenico Caponi; Marco Scaglione; Antonio Montefusco; Antonella Corleto; Fernando Di Monte; Daniele Coin; Paolo Di Donna; Carla Giustetto Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2008-10
Authors: Caroline H Roney; Chris D Cantwell; Norman A Qureshi; Rheeda L Ali; Eugene T Y Chang; Phang Boon Lim; Spencer J Sherwin; Nicholas S Peters; Jennifer H Siggers; Fu Siong Ng Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2014
Authors: Caroline H Roney; Charles Sillett; John Whitaker; Jose Alonso Solis Lemus; Iain Sim; Irum Kotadia; Mark O'Neill; Steven E Williams; Steven A Niederer Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Caroline Mendonca Costa; Philip Gemmell; Mark K Elliott; John Whitaker; Fernando O Campos; Marina Strocchi; Aurel Neic; Karli Gillette; Edward Vigmond; Gernot Plank; Reza Razavi; Mark O'Neill; Christopher A Rinaldi; Martin J Bishop Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Mark K Elliott; Caroline Mendonca Costa; John Whitaker; Philip Gemmell; Vishal S Mehta; Baldeep S Sidhu; Justin Gould; Steven E Williams; Mark O'Neill; Reza Razavi; Steven Niederer; Martin J Bishop; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2022-01-26