4.6 Article

Hierarchical Algorithms for Causality Retrieval in Atrial Fibrillation Intracavitary Electrograms

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2805773

关键词

Electrocardiography; intracavitary electrograms; atrial fibrillation; radio frequency ablation; Granger causality

资金

  1. BBVA Foundation through I Convocatoria de Ayudas a Investigadores, Innovadores y Creadores Culturales (MG-FIAR project)
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Industria, Economia y Competitividad through the MIMOD-PLC [TEC2015-64835-C3-3-R]
  3. Comunidad de Madrid through project CASI-CAM-CM [S2013/ICE-2845]
  4. Spanish Ministerio de Industria, Economia y Competitividad through the ADVENTURE [TEC2015-69868-C2-1-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multichannel intracavitary electrograms (EGMs) are acquired at the electrophysiology laboratory to guide radio frequency catheter ablation of patients suffering from atrial fibrillation. These EGMs are used by cardiologists to determine candidate areas for ablation (e.g., areas corresponding to high dominant frequencies or complex fractionated electrograms). In this paper, we introduce two hierarchical algorithms to retrieve the causal interactions among these multiple EGMs. Both algorithms are based on Granger causality, but other causality measures can be easily incorporated. In both cases, they start by selecting a root node, but they differ on the way in which they explore the set of signals to determine their cause-effect relationships: either testing the full set of unexplored signals (GS-CaRe) or performing a local search only among the set of neighbor EGMs (LS-CaRe). The ensuing causal model provides important information about the propagation of the electrical signals inside the atria, uncovering wavefronts and activation patterns that can guide cardiologists towards candidate areas for catheter ablation. Numerical experiments, on both synthetic signals and annotated real-world signals, show the good performance of the two proposed approaches.

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