4.6 Article

Contribution of atrial myofiber architecture to atrial fibrillation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279974

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the correlation between fiber direction derived from Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) and atrial fibrillation (AF) inducibility, suggesting that fiber direction may contribute to the initiation and sustaining of AF.
BackgroundThe role of fiber orientation on a global chamber level in sustaining atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. The goal of this study was to correlate the fiber direction derived from Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) with AF inducibility. MethodsTransgenic goats with cardiac-specific overexpression of constitutively active TGF-beta 1 (n = 14) underwent AF inducibility testing by rapid pacing in the left atrium. We chose a minimum of 10 minutes of sustained AF as a cut-off for AF inducibility. Explanted hearts underwent DTI to determine the fiber direction. Using tractography data, we clustered, visualized, and quantified the fiber helix angles in 8 different regions of the left atrial wall using two reference vectors defined based on anatomical landmarks. ResultsSustained AF was induced in 7 out of 14 goats. The mean helix fiber angles in 7 out of 8 selected regions were statistically different (P-Value < 0.05) in the AF inducible group. The average fractional anisotropy (FA) and the mean diffusivity (MD) were similar in the two groups with FA of 0.32 +/- 0.08 and MD of 8.54 +/- 1.72 mm(2)/s in the non-inducible group and FA of 0.31 +/- 0.05 (P-value = 0.90) and MD of 8.68 +/- 1.60 mm(2)/s (P-value = 0.88) in the inducible group. ConclusionsDTI based fiber direction shows significant variability across subjects with a significant difference between animals that are AF inducible versus animals that are not inducible. Fiber direction might be contributing to the initiation and sustaining of AF, and its role needs to be investigated further.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据