Why the study?
Determining optimal treatment strategies for complex arrhythmogenesis in AF is confounded by a lack of consensus regarding the mechanisms causing AF.
Differences in reported AF mechanisms are largely driven by variations in investigational tools, spatial scales, and clinical populations, highlighting the need for standardized mapping and analysis techniques.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standardization of AF mapping techniques is needed; leaves open consensus mechanisms across models, scales, and populations.
Determining optimal treatment strategies for complex arrhythmogenesis in AF is confounded by the lack of consensus regarding the mechanisms causing AF. Studies report different mechanisms for AF, ranging from hierarchical drivers to anarchical multiple activation wavelets. Differences in the assessment of AF mechanisms are likely due to AF being recorded across diverse models using different investigational tools, spatial scales and clinical populations. The authors review different AF mechanisms, including anatomical and functional re-entry, hierarchical drivers and anarchical multiple wavelets. They then describe different cardiac mapping techniques and analysis tools, including activation mapping, phase mapping and fibrosis identification. They explain and review different data challenges, including differences between recording devices in spatial and temporal resolutions, spatial coverage and recording surface, and report clinical outcomes using different data modalities. They suggest future research directions for investigating the mechanisms underlying human AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roney et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: