Key result
Noncontact mapping accurately determines endocardial repolarization, with activation-recovery intervals strongly correlating with monophasic action potentials during steady state (r=0.94, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does noncontact mapping accurately measure ventricular repolarization compared to monophasic action potential recordings in patients undergoing VT ablation?
Population
9 patients undergoing ablation of ventricular tachycardia guided by noncontact mapping
Comparison
Noncontact mapping to determine repolarization… vs Monophasic action potential recordings at the…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Supports noncontact mapping for endocardial repolarization assessment; leaves open prospective validation before routine VT ablation use.
Observational (n=9)
Does noncontact mapping accurately measure ventricular repolarization compared to monophasic action potential recordings in patients undergoing VT ablation?
Effect estimate: r=0.94
p-value: p=<0.001
Noncontact mapping accurately determines steady-state and dynamic endocardial repolarization in humans, validating its use for characterizing repolarization abnormalities.
Yue et al. (2004) conducted an observational in Ventricular tachycardia (n=9). Noncontact mapping (NCM) vs. Monophasic action potential (MAP) recordings was evaluated on Correlation between UE-determined activation-recovery interval (ARI) and MAP measured at 90% repolarization (MAP90%) (r=0.94, p=<0.001). Noncontact mapping accurately determines endocardial repolarization, with activation-recovery intervals strongly correlating with monophasic action potentials during steady state (r=0.94, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: