Key result
Directed graph mapping shows strong agreement with traditional mapping for determining VT mechanism and circuit type.
Why the study?
Directed graph mapping (DGM) offers a novel technique to identify VT mechanisms and critical circuit components, but its accuracy compared with traditional mapping and automated conduction velocity mapping needed evaluation.
Does directed graph mapping accurately identify the VT mechanism, characterize the VT circuit, and locate the critical isthmus compared to traditional mapping in patients with structural heart disease undergoing VT ablation?
Observational (n=35)
Does directed graph mapping accurately identify the VT mechanism, characterize the VT circuit, and locate the critical isthmus compared to traditional mapping in patients with structural heart disease undergoing VT ablation?
Effect estimate: kappa 0.79
p-value: p=<0.01
Directed graph mapping is a rapid automated algorithm that demonstrates strong agreement with traditional mapping for identifying VT mechanisms and critical isthmuses.
May support automated VT mapping as adjunct in structural heart disease; leaves open need for prospective trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Understanding underlying mechanism(s) and identifying critical circuit components are fundamental to successful ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Directed graph mapping (DGM) offers a novel technique to identify the mechanism and critical components of a VT circuit. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the accuracy of DGM in VT ablation compared with traditional mapping techniques and a commercially available automated conduction velocity mapping (ACVM) tool. METHODS: Patients with structural heart disease who had undergone a VT ablation with entrainment-proven critical isthmus and a high-density electroanatomical activation map were included. Traditional mapping (TM) consisted of a combination of local activation time and entrainment mapping and was considered the gold standard for determining the VT mechanism, circuit, and isthmus location. The same local activation time values were then processed using DGM and a commercially available ACVM (Coherent Mapping, Biosense Webster) tool. The aim of this study was to compare TM vs DGM and ACVM in their ability to identify the VT mechanism, characterize the VT circuit, and locate the critical isthmus. RESULTS: Thirty-five cases were identified. TM classified the VT mechanism as focal in 7 patients and re-entrant in 28 patients. TM classified 11 VTs as single-loop re-entry, 15 as dual-loop re-entry, 1 as complex, and 1 case was indeterminant. The overall agreement between DGM and TM for determining VT mechanism and circuit type was strong (kappa value = 0.79; P < 0.01), as was the agreement between ACVM and TM (kappa value = 0.66; P < 0.01). Both DGM and ACVM identified the putative VT isthmus in 25 (89%) of the re-entrant cases. Focal activation was correctly identified by both techniques in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: DGM is a rapid automated algorithm that has a strong level of agreement with TM for manually re-annotated VT maps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hawson et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease (n=35). Directed graph mapping (DGM) vs. Traditional mapping (TM) was evaluated on Agreement for determining VT mechanism and circuit type (kappa 0.79, p=<0.01). Directed graph mapping demonstrated strong agreement with traditional mapping for determining ventricular tachycardia mechanism and circuit type (kappa = 0.79; P < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: