4.6 Article

Physiological Assessment of Ventricular Myocardial Voltage Using Omnipolar Electrograms

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006447

关键词

electrophysiology mapping; omnipole; physiology; ventricular myocardium; ventricular tachycardia; voltage mapping

资金

  1. Abbott, St. Paul, MN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Characterization of myocardial health by bipolar electrograms are critical for ventricular tachycardia therapy. Dependence of bipolar electrograms on electrode orientation may reduce reliability of voltage assessment along the plane of arrhythmic myocardial substrate. Hence, we sought to evaluate voltage assessment from orientation-independent omnipolar electrograms. Methods and Results-We mapped the ventricular epicardium of 5 isolated hearts from each species-healthy rabbits, healthy pigs, and diseased humans-under paced conditions. We derived bipolar electrograms and voltage peak-to-peak (Vpps) along 2 bipolar electrode orientations (horizontal and vertical). We derived omnipolar electrograms and Vpps using omnipolar electrogram methodology. Voltage maps were created for both bipoles and omnipole. Electrode orientation affects the bipolar voltage map with an average absolute difference between horizontal and vertical of 0.25 +/- 0.18 mV in humans. Vpps provide larger absolute values than horizontal and vertical bipolar Vpps by 1.6 and 1.4 mV, respectively, in humans. Bipolar electrograms with the largest Vpps from either along horizontal or vertical orientation are highly correlated with omnipolar electrograms and with Vpps values (0.97 +/- 0.08 and 0.94 +/- 0.08, respectively). Vpps values are more consistent than bipoles, in both beat-by-beat (CoV, 0.28 +/- 0.19 versus 0.08 +/- 0.13 in human hearts) and rhythm changes (0.55 +/- 0.21 versus 0.40 +/- 0.20 in porcine hearts). Conclusions-Omnipoles provide physiologically relevant and consistent voltages that are along the maximal bipolar direction on the plane of the myocardium.

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