Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Peak frequency analysis distinguishes nearfield from farfield signals during pulmonary vein isolation
Authors' conclusion
We confirmed the hypothesis that PF distinguishes nearfield from farfield electrograms. PF analysis improves the recognition of PVI. Mapping and ablation strategies using PF should be pursued to improve ablation outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PV isolation (PVI)patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI
- Participants
- 30 patients
- Exposure
- Peak frequency (PF) cutoff for differentiating farfield from nearfield electrograms
- Cohort 1n = 10
- Cohort 2n = 10
- Cohort 3n = 10
- Outcome
- PF in farfield vs nearfield electrograms
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- PF was lower in farfield electrograms than nearfield electrograms
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Sensitivity
| Outcome | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 | Cohort 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity of PF cutoff of 300 Hz for differentiating farfield from nearfield electrograms | 93.2% (95% CI 81.3–98.6) | 90.0% (95% CI 76.3–97.2) | 98.6% (95% CI 90.1–99.7) |
Specificity and area under the receiver operator curve, all patients
- Specificity
- 100.0% (95% CI 98.2-100.0)
- Area under the receiver operator curve
- 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00)
Original publication
Peak frequency analysis distinguishes nearfield from farfield signals during pulmonary vein isolation. Heart Rhythm. Published 4 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →