Why the study?
The study was conducted to introduce and validate a novel high-frequency electrocardiographic imaging technique that measures intramural ventricular electrical activation.
Does high-frequency electrocardiographic imaging (HFECGI) accurately measure intramural ventricular electrical activation compared to conventional ECGI?
Does high-frequency electrocardiographic imaging (HFECGI) accurately measure intramural ventricular electrical activation compared to conventional ECGI?
HFECGI is a novel non-invasive imaging technique capable of measuring intramural electrical activation and distinguishing between different types of conduction disturbances.
The study introduces and validates a novel high-frequency (100-400 Hz) electrocardiographic imaging (HFECGI) technique that measures intramural ventricular electrical activation. Ex-vivo experiments and clinical measurements were employed. Ex-vivo, two pig hearts were suspended in a human-torso shaped tank using surface tank electrodes, epicardial electrode sock, and plunge electrodes. We compared conventional epicardial electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) with intramural activation by HFECGI and verified with sock and plunge electrodes. Clinical importance of HFECGI measurements was performed on 14 patients with variable conduction abnormalities. From 2 kHz ECG records (3x4 needle and 108 sock electrodes, 256 torso or 184 body surface electrodes), transmural activation times, sock epicardial activation times, ECGI-derived activation times, and high-frequency activation times were computed. The ex-vivo transmural measurements showed that HFECGI measures intramural electrical activation, and ECGI-HFECGI activation times differences indicate endo-to-epi or epi-to-endo conduction direction. HFECGI-derived volumetric dyssynchrony was significantly lower than epicardial ECGI dyssynchrony. HFECGI dyssynchrony was able to distinguish between intraventricular conduction disturbance and bundle branch block patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jurák et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: