Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021
Local abnormal ventricular activity detection in scar-related VT: Microelectrode versus conventional bipolar electrode.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nakashima Takashi, Cheniti Ghassen, Takagi Takamitsu, Vlachos Konstantinos, Goujeau Cyril, André Clémentine, Krisai Philipp, Ramirez F Daniel, Pintican Gabriela, Kamakura Tsukasa, Nakatani Yosuke, Surget Elodie, Roux Jean-Rodolphe, Meillet Valentin, Carapezzi Aline, Tixier Romain, Chauvel Remi, Pambrun Thomas, Duchateau Josselin, Derval Nicolas, Pillois Xavier, Cochet Hubert, Hocini Mélèze, Haïssaguerre Michel, Jaïs Pierre, Sacher Frédéric
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conventional bipolar electrodes (CBE) may be suboptimal to detect local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVAs). Microelectrodes (ME) may improve the detection of LAVAs. This study sought to elucidate the detectability of LAVAs using ME compared with CBE in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT).
METHODS: We included consecutive patients with structural heart disease who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for scar-related VT using either of the following catheters equipped with ME: QDOTTM or IntellaTip MIFITM. Detection field of LAVA potentials were classified as three types: Type 1 (both CBE and ME detected LAVA), Type 2 (CBE did not detect LAVA while ME did), and Type 3 (CBE detected LAVA while ME did not).
RESULTS: In 16 patients (68 ± 16 years; 14 males), 260 LAVAs electrograms (QDOT = 72; MIFI = 188) were analyzed. Type 1, type 2, and type 3 detections were 70.8% (QDOT, 69.4%; MIFI, 71.3%), 20.0% (QDOT, 23.6%; MIFI, 18.6%) and 9.2% (QDOT, 6.9%; MIFI, 10.1%), respectively. The LAVAs amplitudes detected by ME were higher than those detected by CBE in both catheters (QDOT: ME 0.79 ± 0.50 mV vs. CBE 0.41 ± 0.42 mV, p = .001; MIFI: ME 0.73 ± 0.64 mV vs. CBE 0.38 ± 0.36 mV, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: ME allow to identify 20% of LAVAs missed by CBE. ME showed higher amplitude LAVAs than CBE. However, 9.2% of LAVAs can still be missed by ME.
METHODS: We included consecutive patients with structural heart disease who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for scar-related VT using either of the following catheters equipped with ME: QDOTTM or IntellaTip MIFITM. Detection field of LAVA potentials were classified as three types: Type 1 (both CBE and ME detected LAVA), Type 2 (CBE did not detect LAVA while ME did), and Type 3 (CBE detected LAVA while ME did not).
RESULTS: In 16 patients (68 ± 16 years; 14 males), 260 LAVAs electrograms (QDOT = 72; MIFI = 188) were analyzed. Type 1, type 2, and type 3 detections were 70.8% (QDOT, 69.4%; MIFI, 71.3%), 20.0% (QDOT, 23.6%; MIFI, 18.6%) and 9.2% (QDOT, 6.9%; MIFI, 10.1%), respectively. The LAVAs amplitudes detected by ME were higher than those detected by CBE in both catheters (QDOT: ME 0.79 ± 0.50 mV vs. CBE 0.41 ± 0.42 mV, p = .001; MIFI: ME 0.73 ± 0.64 mV vs. CBE 0.38 ± 0.36 mV, p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: ME allow to identify 20% of LAVAs missed by CBE. ME showed higher amplitude LAVAs than CBE. However, 9.2% of LAVAs can still be missed by ME.