4.7 Article

Automated isochronal late activation mapping to identify deceleration zones: Rationale and methodology of a practical electroanatomic mapping approach for ventricular tachycardia ablation

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 336-340

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.07.012

关键词

Ventricular tachycardia; Ablation; Electroanatomic mapping; Arrhythmias; Cardiac electrophysiology; Cardiac mapping; Conduction velocity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sinus rhythm surrogates for critical isthmus sites are highly desirable because the vast majority of VT is hemodynamically unstable. While many ablation strategies to decrease the arrhythmogenicity of scar have been shown to be effective, the predominant method for electroanatomic mapping relies on a voltage-based depiction of scar and abnormal electrograms. A functional prioritization of slow conduction, distinct from late activation, is feasible in clinical practice with the creation of isochronal late activation maps. Regions of slow conduction are easily visualized with isochronal displays of baseline intrinsic rhythm activation and deceleration zones, where isochrones crowd, have been observed to have strong correlation with successful ablation sites. Automated annotation of the offset of local electrograms was developed to create the propagation maps to incorporate electrogram width and completion of local activation. Simple conduction velocity estimates where three isochrones are seen within a 1 cm radium confirm that deceleration zones harbor conduction velocity of < 0.6 m/s. We present a practical methodology of analyzing electroanatomic substrate in a voltage-independent manner with correlation to reentrant VT. Non-linear 3D transmyocardial conduction limits the validity of conduction velocity estimates that assume planar and tangential conduction and we show an example of a patient with 3D isthmus boundaries with an activation gap on the epicardial surface during tachycardia.

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

4.7
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