Heart rhythm · 2018
Cardiac electrical dyssynchrony is accurately detected by noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bear Laura R, Huntjens Peter R, Walton Richard D, Bernus Olivier, Coronel Ruben, Dubois Rémi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Poor identification of electrical dyssynchrony is postulated to be a major factor contributing to the low success rate for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of body surface mapping and electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) to detect electrical dyssynchrony noninvasively.
METHODS: Langendorff-perfused pig hearts (n = 11) were suspended in a human torso-shaped tank, with left bundle branch block (LBBB) induced through ablation. Recordings were taken simultaneously from a 108-electrode epicardial sock and 128 electrodes embedded in the tank surface during sinus rhythm and ventricular pacing. Computed tomography provided electrode and heart positions in the tank. Epicardial unipolar electrograms were reconstructed from torso potentials using ECGi. Dyssynchrony markers from torso potentials (eg, QRS duration) or ECGi (total activation time, interventricular delay [D-LR], and intraventricular markers) were correlated with those recorded from the sock.
RESULTS: LBBB was induced (n = 8), and sock-derived activation maps demonstrated interventricular dyssynchrony (D-LR and total activation time) in all cases (P < .05) and intraventricular dyssynchrony for complete LBBB (P < .05) compared to normal sinus rhythm. Only D-LR returned to normal with biventricular pacing (P = .1). Torso markers increased with large degrees of dyssynchrony, and no reduction was seen during biventricular pacing (P > .05). Although ECGi-derived markers were significantly lower than recorded (P < .05), there was a significant strong linear relationship between ECGi and recorded values. ECGi correctly diagnosed electrical dyssynchrony and interventricular resynchronization in all cases. The latest site of activation was identified to 9.1 ± 0.6 mm by ECGi.
CONCLUSION: ECGi reliably and accurately detects electrical dyssynchrony, resynchronization by biventricular pacing, and the site of latest activation, providing more information than do body surface potentials.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of body surface mapping and electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) to detect electrical dyssynchrony noninvasively.
METHODS: Langendorff-perfused pig hearts (n = 11) were suspended in a human torso-shaped tank, with left bundle branch block (LBBB) induced through ablation. Recordings were taken simultaneously from a 108-electrode epicardial sock and 128 electrodes embedded in the tank surface during sinus rhythm and ventricular pacing. Computed tomography provided electrode and heart positions in the tank. Epicardial unipolar electrograms were reconstructed from torso potentials using ECGi. Dyssynchrony markers from torso potentials (eg, QRS duration) or ECGi (total activation time, interventricular delay [D-LR], and intraventricular markers) were correlated with those recorded from the sock.
RESULTS: LBBB was induced (n = 8), and sock-derived activation maps demonstrated interventricular dyssynchrony (D-LR and total activation time) in all cases (P < .05) and intraventricular dyssynchrony for complete LBBB (P < .05) compared to normal sinus rhythm. Only D-LR returned to normal with biventricular pacing (P = .1). Torso markers increased with large degrees of dyssynchrony, and no reduction was seen during biventricular pacing (P > .05). Although ECGi-derived markers were significantly lower than recorded (P < .05), there was a significant strong linear relationship between ECGi and recorded values. ECGi correctly diagnosed electrical dyssynchrony and interventricular resynchronization in all cases. The latest site of activation was identified to 9.1 ± 0.6 mm by ECGi.
CONCLUSION: ECGi reliably and accurately detects electrical dyssynchrony, resynchronization by biventricular pacing, and the site of latest activation, providing more information than do body surface potentials.