Key result
Omnipolar AF mapping identifies ~36% smaller low-voltage zones than bipolar and better detects ablation gaps.
Why the study?
The optimal method for voltage assessment in AF remains unclear, prompting evaluation of different atrial voltage assessment methods and their accuracy in identifying pulmonary vein reconnection sites.
Does omnipolar voltage mapping more accurately delineate scar and identify pulmonary vein reconnection sites compared to bipolar voltage mapping in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=40)
Does omnipolar voltage mapping more accurately delineate scar and identify pulmonary vein reconnection sites compared to bipolar voltage mapping in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 42.4% vs 66.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Omnipolar voltage mapping in atrial fibrillation improves voltage assessment by overcoming wavefront collision and fractionation, more accurately delineating scar and gaps on ablation lines compared to bipolar mapping.
Omnipolar mapping may refine scar assessment in persistent AF; leaves open whether it improves ablation outcomes versus bipolar mapping.
BACKGROUND: Optimal method for voltage assessment in AF remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated different methods for assessing atrial voltage and their accuracy in identifying pulmonary vein reconnection sites (PVRSs) in atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Patients with persistent AF undergoing ablation were included. De novo procedures: voltage assessment in AF with omnipolar voltage (OV) and bipolar voltage (BV) methodology and BV assessment in sinus rhythm (SR). Activation vector and fractionation maps were reviewed at voltage discrepancy sites on OV and BV maps in AF. AF voltage maps were compared with SR BV maps. Repeat ablation procedures: OV and BV maps in AF were compared to detect gaps in wide area circumferential ablation (WACA) lines that correlated with PVRS. RESULTS: Forty patients were included: 20 de novo and 20 repeat procedures. De novo procedure: OV vs BV maps in AF; average voltage 0.55 ± 0.18 mV vs 0.38 ± 0.12 mV; P = 0.002, voltage difference of 0.20 ± 0.07 mV; P = 0.003 at coregistered points and proportion of left atrium (LA) area occupied by low-voltage zones (LVZs) was smaller on OV maps (42.4% ± 12.8% OV vs 66.7% ± 12.7% BV; P < 0.001). LVZs identified on BV maps and not on OV maps correlated frequently to wavefront collision and fractionation sites (94.7%). OV AF maps agreed better with BV SR maps (voltage difference at coregistered points 0.09 ± 0.03 mV; P = 0.24) unlike BV AF maps (0.17 ± 0.07 mV, P = 0.002). Repeat ablation procedure: OV was superior in identifying WACA line gaps that correlated with PVRS than BV maps (area under the curve = 0.89, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OV AF maps improve voltage assessment by overcoming the impact of wavefront collision and fractionation. OV AF maps correlate better with BV maps in SR and more accurately delineate gaps on WACA lines at PVRS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Butcher et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=40). Omnipolar voltage (OV) mapping vs. Bipolar voltage (BV) mapping was evaluated on Proportion of left atrium area occupied by low-voltage zones (p=<0.001). Omnipolar voltage mapping in AF identified smaller low-voltage zones than bipolar mapping (42.4% vs 66.7%, P<0.001) and was superior in detecting ablation line gaps (AUC=0.89, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: