| Literature DB >> 34431016 |
Karli Gillette1,2, Matthias A F Gsell1, Julien Bouyssier3, Anton J Prassl1, Aurel Neic4, Edward J Vigmond3, Gernot Plank5,6.
Abstract
Personalized models of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) that match clinical observation with high fidelity, referred to as cardiac digital twins (CDTs), show promise as a tool for tailoring cardiac precision therapies. Building CDTs of cardiac EP relies on the ability of models to replicate the ventricular activation sequence under a broad range of conditions. Of pivotal importance is the His-Purkinje system (HPS) within the ventricles. Workflows for the generation and incorporation of HPS models are needed for use in cardiac digital twinning pipelines that aim to minimize the misfit between model predictions and clinical data such as the 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG). We thus develop an automated two stage approach for HPS personalization. A fascicular-based model is first introduced that modulates the endocardial Purkinje network. Only emergent features of sites of earliest activation within the ventricular myocardium and a fast-conducting sub-endocardial layer are accounted for. It is then replaced by a topologically realistic Purkinje-based representation of the HPS. Feasibility of the approach is demonstrated. Equivalence between both HPS model representations is investigated by comparing activation patterns and 12 lead ECGs under both sinus rhythm and right-ventricular apical pacing. Predominant ECG morphology is preserved by both HPS models under sinus conditions, but elucidates differences during pacing.Entities:
Keywords: Computational cardiac modeling; Electrocardiogram; Forward ECG modeling; His–Purkinje system; Parameter identification
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34431016 PMCID: PMC8671274 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-021-02825-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Biomed Eng ISSN: 0090-6964 Impact factor: 3.934
Figure 1Parameter definition of the HPS. (a) Top panel shows the representation of the EASs and SE layer bounded apicobasally within . (b) The left bottom panel shows the fascicular-based model that defines discs with a given radius centered around root locations corresponding to EASs fired at given timings defined by . (c) The Purkinje-based model requires definition of bifurcation points of the His-bundle and fasicular network. Purkinje trees are grown from root locations corresponding to the EASs with given growth and branching parameters to a given sizing dictated by .
Baseline configuration for the root locations of the bundle branches that govern EASs and a SE layer bounded apicobasally within the HPS system.
| Entity | Parameter | Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UVC coordinates | |||||
| Earliest activation sites | 0.61 | 0.0 | 0.73 | − 1 | |
| 0.47 | 0.0 | − 1.36 | − 1 | ||
| 0.82 | 0.0 | 1.94 | − 1 | ||
| 0.73 | 1.0 | − 0.04 | − 1 | ||
| 0.63 | 0.0 | 0.21 | + 1 | ||
| SE layer | 0.15 | ||||
| 0.9 | |||||
| 0.1 | |||||
Root locations were optimized to generate comparable ECG morphology during sinus rhythm for the single subject as detailed in Ref. 13
Parameter settings assigned to generate agreement between Purkinje and fascicular-based HPS model representations.
| Fascicular Representaion ( | ||
|---|---|---|
| Entity | Parameter | Value |
| Timings of earliest activation sites | ||
| Sizing | 0.05 | |
Figure 2Comparison between the fasicular (a) and Purkinje-based (b) models of the HPS system initialized using and , respectively. (a) Fascicular representation using discs comprises a fast-conducting SE layer with root locations as depicted corresponding to the EASs. (b) Purkinje fascicles pertaining to the RV moderator band (magenta), RV septum (blue), LV anterior (green), LV septal (purple), and LV posterior (yellow) were grown from root locations for each EAS to span the entirety of the SE layer. A His-bundle system connecting these root locations is constructed (black).
Timings in seconds corresponding to the construction and simulation of both model representations. Simulations were executed using 16 compute cores.
| Fascicular | Purkinje | |
|---|---|---|
| Setup of His–Purkinje system | 11.0 | 680.3 |
| Lead field computation | 90.2 | 109.3 |
| ECG forward model | ||
| Simulation setup | 8.9 | 29.3 |
| Solver time | 2.0 | 26.6 |
| Total | 10.9 | 55.9 |
Figure 3Comparison of both HPS representations during healthy sinus rhythm with orthodromic propagation in the HPS and anterograde activation of the ventricles. Ventricular activation maps of (a) fascicular-based and (b) Purkinje-based model are shown with isocontour lines every time interval. (c) Simulated 12 lead ECG resulting from the fascicular (red) and Purkinje (blue) model alongside the measured ECG (black) of the given subject.
Figure 4Response of both HPS models to RV apical pacing. (a, b) Ventricular activation maps obtained with (a) fascicular-based and (b) Purkinje-based models are shown with isocontour lines indicating 5 ms time intervals. Pacing location is also indicated. (c) Simulated 12 lead ECG resulting from the fascicle-based (red) and Purkinje-based (blue) models.