Key result
Unipolar electrograms more accurately localized the ligament of Marshall compared to bipolar electrograms, with only a third of unipolar LOM potentials remaining visible in bipolar activation maps.
Why the study?
The ligament of Marshall (LOM) may contribute to several tachyarrhythmias, making accurate electrophysiological localization crucial for effective ablation therapy.
Which electrogram recording technology (unipolar vs. bipolar) is most suitable for accurate localization of the ligament of Marshall?
Observational (n=19)
No
Which electrogram recording technology (unipolar vs. bipolar) is most suitable for accurate localization of the ligament of Marshall?
Unipolar electrograms are superior to bipolar electrograms for accurately localizing the ligament of Marshall during intra-operative epicardial mapping.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Unipolar electrograms may aid LOM localization in epicardial mapping; leaves open impact on ablation outcomes in prospective trials.
Background The ligament of Marshall (LOM) may play a role in the pathophysiology of several tachyarrhythmias and accurate electrophysiological localization of this structure is crucial for effective ablation therapy. This study therefore quantifies electrophysiological properties of the LOM, and identifies which electrogram (EGM) recording (uni- or bipolar) and processing technologies [local activation time (LAT) and/or voltage mapping] are most suitable for accurate localization of the LOM. Methods The LOM was electrophysiologically identified in 19 patients (mean age 66 ± 14 years; 12 male) undergoing elective cardiac surgery using intra-operative high-density epicardial mapping, to quantify and visualize EGM features during sinus rhythm. Results Only a third of LOM potentials that were visualized using unipolar EGMs, were still visible in bipolar activation maps. Unipolar LOM potentials had lower voltages (P50: LOM: 1.51 (0.42–4.29) mV vs. left atrium (LA): 8.34 (1.50–17.91) mV, p < 0.001), less steep slopes (P50: LOM: –0.48 (–1.96 to –0.17) V/s vs. LA: –1.24 (–2.59 to –0.21) V/s, p < 0.001), and prolonged activation duration (LOM: 20 (7.5–30.5) ms vs. LA: 16.5 (6–28) ms, p = 0.008) compared to LA potentials. Likewise, bipolar LOM voltages were also smaller (P50: LOM: 1.54 (0.48–3.28) mV vs. LA: 3.12 (0.50–7.19) mV, p < 0.001). Conclusion The LOM was most accurately localized in activation and voltage maps by using unipolar EGMs with annotation of primary deflections in case of single potentials and secondary deflections in case of double or fractionated potentials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Langmuur et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Elective open-heart surgery (n=19). Unipolar electrogram mapping vs. Bipolar electrogram mapping was evaluated on Median unipolar peak-to-peak voltage (mV) (p=<0.001). Unipolar electrograms more accurately localized the ligament of Marshall compared to bipolar electrograms, with only a third of unipolar LOM potentials remaining visible in bipolar activation maps.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: