Why the study?
Trials targeting low voltage areas as the substrate for AF ablation have shown mixed results, requiring a thorough understanding of mapping techniques, pathophysiology, and measurement limitations.
This review highlights the utility and inherent limitations of conventional left atrial voltage mapping in AF ablation, suggesting omnipole mapping and dynamic voltage attenuation as potential solutions.
Voltage mapping limitations in AF ablation warrant cautious clinical interpretation; leaves open validation of omnipole and dynamic attenuation approaches.
Low atrial endocardial bipolar voltage, measured during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), is a commonly used surrogate marker for the presence of atrial fibrosis. Low voltage shows many useful associations with clinical outcomes, comorbidities and has links to trigger sites for AF. Several contemporary trials have shown promise in targeting low voltage areas as the substrate for AF ablation; however, the results have been mixed. In order to understand these results, a thorough understanding of voltage mapping techniques, the relationship between low voltage and the pathophysiology of AF, as well as the inherent limitations in voltage measurement are needed. Two key questions must be answered in order to optimally apply voltage mapping as the road map for ablation. First, are the inherent limitations of voltage mapping small enough as to be ignored when targeting specific tissue based on voltage? Second, can conventional criteria, using a binary threshold for voltage amplitude, truly define the extent of the atrial fibrotic substrate? Here, we review the latest clinical evidence with regard to voltage-based ablation procedures before analysing the utility and limitations of voltage mapping. Finally, we discuss omnipole mapping and dynamic voltage attenuation as two possible approaches to resolving these issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sim et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: