Key result
Unipolar voltages from conventional and microelectrodes show unexpectedly similar correlation to viable myocardium.
Why the study?
The field-of-view of unipolar, bipolar, conventional, and microelectrodes relative to the extent of viable myocardium is not well defined for voltage mapping.
Does electroanatomic voltage-mapping with different-size electrodes accurately identify viable myocardium compared to high-resolution ex-vivo CMR in a swine model of myocardial infarction?
Does electroanatomic voltage-mapping with different-size electrodes accurately identify viable myocardium compared to high-resolution ex-vivo CMR in a swine model of myocardial infarction?
Microelectrodes and conventional electrodes have unexpectedly similar fields-of-view for unipolar recordings (8 to 10 mm), and both correlate poorly with small amounts of viable myocardium, limiting their utility in defining heterogeneous scar.
Voltage mapping may miss small viable myocardium in heterogeneous scar; leaves open optimal electrode size and human validation.
BACKGROUND: Voltage mapping to detect ventricular scar is important for guiding catheter ablation, but the field-of-view of unipolar, bipolar, conventional, and microelectrodes as it relates to the extent of viable myocardium (VM) is not well defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate electroanatomic voltage-mapping (EAVM) with different-size electrodes for identifying VM, validated against high-resolution ex-vivo cardiac magnetic resonance (HR-LGE-CMR). METHODS: A total of 9 swine with early-reperfusion myocardial infarction were mapped with the QDOT microcatheter. HR-LGE-CMR (0.3-mm slices) were merged with EAVM. At each EAVM point, the underlying VM in multisize transmural cylinders and spheres was quantified from ex vivo CMR and related to unipolar and bipolar voltages recorded from conventional and microelectrodes. RESULTS: (equivalent to a 5-mm radius cylinder with height >6.69 mm). VM volumes in subendocardial cylinders with 1- or 3-mm depth correlated poorly with all voltages. Unipolar voltages recorded with conventional and microelectrodes were similar (difference 0.17 ± 2.66 mV) and correlated best to VM within a sphere of radius 10 and 8 mm, respectively. Distance-weighting did not improve the correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Voltage increases with transmural volume of VM but correlates poorly with small amounts of VM, which limits EAVM in defining heterogeneous scar. Microelectrodes cannot distinguish thin from thick areas of subendocardial VM. The field-of-view for unipolar recordings for microelectrodes and conventional electrodes appears to be 8 to 10 mm, respectively, and unexpectedly similar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omara et al. (2024) studied early-reperfusion myocardial infarction (n=9). Electroanatomic voltage-mapping with conventional and microelectrodes vs. High-resolution ex-vivo cardiac magnetic resonance was evaluated on Correlation of unipolar and bipolar voltages with viable myocardium volume. Unipolar voltages from conventional and microelectrodes were unexpectedly similar (difference 0.17 ± 2.66 mV) and correlated best to viable myocardium within spheres of 10 and 8 mm radius.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: