Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Ventricular tachycardia substrate mapping with cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Head-to-head comparison of two clinically available postprocessing platforms
Authors' conclusion
ADAS 3D and inHEART demonstrated high concordance in scar quantification and substrate characterization, with comparable performance across cardiomyopathy types. Given their complementary strengths, platform choice should be guided by procedural goals, imaging availability, operator experience, and institutional context, as each system offers distinct advantages. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact on procedural success and long-term outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation who underwent both CCT and late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) before ablationpatients analyzed, 12 had detailed EAM data · ischemic 8 · nonischemic 8
- Participants
- 16 patients
- Exposure
- CMR- and CCT-derived ventricular substrate models generated by ADAS 3D and inHEART
- Outcome
- Scar core and border zone measurements
Methodological detailsretrospective
- Retrospective
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Comparable between platforms in both subgroups
- all P > .05
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Visualization scores
- ADAS 3D slightly higher, particularly in nonischemic cardiomyopathy; differences not statistically significant
Spatial concordance between imaging-derived scar and EAM-defined ablation areas
- Good to excellent
- 10 of 12 cases
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →