| Literature DB >> 35620600 |
Abstract
Computational simulations of cardiac electrophysiology provide detailed information on the depolarization phenomena at different spatial and temporal scales. With the development of new hardware and software, in silico experiments have gained more importance in cardiac electrophysiology research. For plane waves in healthy tissue, in vivo and in silico electrograms at the surface of the tissue demonstrate symmetric morphology and high peak-to-peak amplitude. Simulations provided insight into the factors that alter the morphology and amplitude of the electrograms. The situation is more complex in remodeled tissue with fibrotic infiltrations. Clinically, different changes including fractionation of the signal, extended duration and reduced amplitude have been described. In silico, numerous approaches have been proposed to represent the pathological changes on different spatial and functional scales. Different modeling approaches can reproduce distinct subsets of the clinically observed electrogram phenomena. This review provides an overview of how different modeling approaches to incorporate fibrotic and structural remodeling affect the electrogram and highlights open challenges to be addressed in future research.Entities:
Keywords: cardiac modeling; electrogram; fibrosis; microstructure; multiscale
Year: 2022 PMID: 35620600 PMCID: PMC9127661 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.908069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
FIGURE 1Electrical propagation in healthy cardiac tissue. (A) Extracellular field caused by the depolarization of cardiomyocytes when an excitation propagates from left to right (green arrows). (B) Symmetric unipolar electrogram measured at the surface of the cardiac tissue (pink). The initial positive wave (R-peak) is caused by the wavefront approaching the electrode (dark gray), the polarity changes when the wavefront passes underneath the electrode, and the S-peak is caused by the wavefront traveling away from the measuring electrode.
FIGURE 2Bidomain simulation of a realistically deformed LASSO™ (Biosense Webster) catheter in a left atrium to study the genesis of different EGM morphologies in healthy myocardium. (A) The wavefront approaches the electrode pair 7–8 and activates both electrodes at the same time, the resulting bipolar electrogram with a reduced peak-to-peak amplitude (0.42 mV). (B) Several wavefronts approaching electrode pair 13–14, both unipolar electrograms are asymmetrical, lacking an S-peak; the resulting bipolar electrogram has a high peak-to-peak amplitude and a positive polarity. (C) The wavefront travels almost perpendicular to electrode pair 3–4; the electrodes are activated at different times, the resulting bipolar electrogram has negative polarity and a high peak-to-peak amplitude (7.45 mV).
FIGURE 3Filter effects on electrograms measured in healthy myocardium. (A) Unipolar electrograms with different highpass filter values. (B) Effect of different highpass cut-off values on the unipolar electrogram amplitude. (C) Bipolar electrogram with different highpass cut-off values. (D) Effect of different highpass cut-off values on the bipolar electrogram amplitude.
FIGURE 4Electrical propagation in fibrotic cardiac tissue, the composition is heterogeneous and includes cardiac myocytes (orange), myofibroblasts/fibroblasts (green) and collagen fibers (purple). Depolarization of cardiomyocytes when an excitation propagates from left to right (brown arrows). Dotted arrows represent a conduction block, while dashed arrows represent slowed conduction. As a result of the zig-zag propagation of the wavefront (white arrows), the unipolar electrogram morphology is not symmetric, is prolonged and shows multiple deflections.
FIGURE 5Filter effect on electrograms measured in the proximity of a fibrotic area. (A) Unipolar electrograms with different highpass filter values. (B) Effect of different highpass cut-off values on the unipolar electrogram amplitude. (C) Bipolar electrogram with different highpass cut-off values. (D) Effect of different highpass cut-off values on the bipolar electrogram amplitude.
Different modeling approaches to represent fibrotic tissue in computational models and their effect on simulated EGMs.
| Modeling approach | Effect on EGMs | References |
|---|---|---|
| Myofibroblasts/fibroblasts coupled to myocytes | longer duration due conduction slowing in the fibrotic area |
|
| Reduced conductivity in fibrotic region, potentially with gradient to surrounding tissue | peak-to-peak amplitude reduced and duration prolonged due to slow propagation of the wavefront |
|
| Severely reduced conductivity in some elements in the fibrotic region | reduced peak-to-peak amplitude in the fibrotic area |
|
| Removing some elements in the fibrotic region | fractionation and reduced peak-to-peak amplitude |
|
| Edge splitting | fractionation depending on the length of the path |
|
| Reduction of conductivity in the transversal fiber direction | increased anisotropy of excitation propagation, effect on EGMs not yet studied |
|
| Reduction of conductivity in the transmural direction | excitation propagation dissociation between transmural layers, effect on EGMs not yet studied |
|
FIGURE 6Sketches of a tissue cut for healthy and fibrotic tissue (top row). Fibrotic sketches represent different fibrotic patterns (diffuse, interstitial, patchy or compact). The bottom row depicts the homogenization assumption where a hexahedral mesh element of 100 μm × 100 μm × 100 μm represents several cardiac myocytes and has to assume one average set of properties that describes the electrophysiology of this group of cells. For fibrotic tissue, homogenization implies that one element contains different types of cells (cardiac myocytes and fibroblasts/myofibroblasts) and collagen. Also the electrophysiological characteristics of this piece of tissue has to be represented by one set of effective parameters.
FIGURE 7Different fibrosis modeling methodologies and their corresponding unipolar and bipolar electrograms. Central fibrotic area (dashed line), the choice of the modeling approach affects the resulting uEGMs and biEGMs. (A) fibroblasts coupled to myocytes in the fibrotic region; (B) removing a share of elements in the fibrotic region from the computational domain; (C) severely reducing conductivity in a share of elements in the fibrotic region but the spatial transmembrane voltage gradients of fibrotic elements still contribute to the EGMs; (D) conductivity gradient from center of the fibrotic region to the surrounding healthy tissue. Absolute EGM amplitudes are smaller than in vivo due to the small size of the tissue patch.