Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyResearch article
Assessment of the Relevant Field of View of Unipolar Electrodes Using In Vivo Imaging
- Patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation received preprocedural late gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) and cardiac computed tomography (CCT) with extracellular volume (ECV) estimation
Authors' conclusion
Clinical evaluation of 1-mm and 460-μm electrodes suggests a larger FOV than preclinical investigations. This quantifies a larger scale across which myocardial viability can influence unipolar electrogram signals observed during ablation procedures and suggests that smaller electrodes can improve spatial sampling density but do not necessarily provide a distinctly more localized characterization of the electrophysiologic properties of the tissue. LGE-CMR best predicted unipolar voltage, whereas CCT-ECV performed less well. Correlations were lower than expected, indicating the need for electrophysiologic assessment alongside comprehensive imaging.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing VT ablation15 had imaging-derived LGE-CMR/CCT-ECV analysis, 13 underwent left ventricular endocardial voltage mapping for field of view (FOV) assessment · imaging-derived LGE-CMR/CCT-ECV analysis 15 · left ventricular endocardial voltage mapping for FOV assessment 13
- Participants
- 16 patients
- Comparison
- Viable myocardium (VM) volume and volume-weighted ECV within multisize spheres around each electrode recording site were correlated with local voltage amplitude
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
The FOV of both electrode sizes
13 millimeters
Further findings
| Outcome | 1-mm electrode | 460-μm electrode |
|---|---|---|
| Correlation of LGE-derived volume of VM with voltage | r 0.53 | r 0.49 |
| P | P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 |
Correlation of LGE-derived volume of VM with voltage
- LGE-derived volume of VM produced the strongest correlations with voltage
Correlation of volume-weighted ECV with voltage
- Volume-weighted ECV demonstrated weaker correlations (r)
- −0.34 and −0.24
- P
- P < 0.001
Original publication
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it