Key result
Porcine MI model shows no ARI differences between LGE areas and healthy myocardium.
Why the study?
The effect of chronic ischemic scar on repolarization is unclear, and the effect of endocardial pacing near scar in vivo remains unknown.
Does scar and endocardial pacing location affect local repolarization in a porcine myocardial infarction model?
Does scar and endocardial pacing location affect local repolarization in a porcine myocardial infarction model?
Changes in activation recovery intervals are not an intrinsic property of surviving myocytes within scar, and endocardial pacing close to scar does not affect local repolarization in a porcine MI model.
ARI changes not intrinsic to scar myocytes; hypothesis-generating for post-MI repolarization mechanisms.
BackgroundThe effect of chronic ischemic scar on repolarization is unclear, with conflicting results from human and animal studies. An improved understanding of electrical remodeling within scar and border zone tissue may enhance substrate-guided ablation techniques for treatment of ventricular tachycardia. Computational modeling studies have suggested increased dispersion of repolarization during epicardial, but not endocardial, left ventricular pacing, in close proximity to scar. However, the effect of endocardial pacing near scar in vivo is unknown.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of scar and pacing location on local repolarization in a porcine myocardial infarction model.MethodsSix model pigs underwent late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) imaging followed by electroanatomic mapping of the left ventricular endocardium. LGE-CMR images were registered to the anatomic shell and scar defined by LGE. Activation recovery intervals (ARIs), a surrogate for action potential duration, and local ARI gradients were calculated from unipolar electrograms within areas of late gadolinium enhancement (aLGE) and healthy myocardium.ResultsThere was no significant difference between aLGE and healthy myocardium in mean ARI (304.20 ± 19.44 ms vs 300.59 ± 19.22 ms; P = .43), ARI heterogeneity (23.32 ± 11.43 ms vs 24.85 ± 12.99 ms; P = .54), or ARI gradients (6.18 ± 2.09 vs 5.66 ± 2.32 ms/mm; P = .39). Endocardial pacing distance from scar did not affect ARI gradients.ConclusionOur findings suggest that changes in ARI are not an intrinsic property of surviving myocytes within scar, and endocardial pacing close to scar does not affect local repolarization. The effect of chronic ischemic scar on repolarization is unclear, with conflicting results from human and animal studies. An improved understanding of electrical remodeling within scar and border zone tissue may enhance substrate-guided ablation techniques for treatment of ventricular tachycardia. Computational modeling studies have suggested increased dispersion of repolarization during epicardial, but not endocardial, left ventricular pacing, in close proximity to scar. However, the effect of endocardial pacing near scar in vivo is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of scar and pacing location on local repolarization in a porcine myocardial infarction model. Six model pigs underwent late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) imaging followed by electroanatomic mapping of the left ventricular endocardium. LGE-CMR images were registered to the anatomic shell and scar defined by LGE. Activation recovery intervals (ARIs), a surrogate for action potential duration, and local ARI gradients were calculated from unipolar electrograms within areas of late gadolinium enhancement (aLGE) and healthy myocardium. There was no significant difference between aLGE and healthy myocardium in mean ARI (304.20 ± 19.44 ms vs 300.59 ± 19.22 ms; P = .43), ARI heterogeneity (23.32 ± 11.43 ms vs 24.85 ± 12.99 ms; P = .54), or ARI gradients (6.18 ± 2.09 vs 5.66 ± 2.32 ms/mm; P = .39). Endocardial pacing distance from scar did not affect ARI gradients. Our findings suggest that changes in ARI are not an intrinsic property of surviving myocytes within scar, and endocardial pacing close to scar does not affect local repolarization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elliott et al. (2022) studied Myocardial infarction (n=7). Endocardial pacing vs. Healthy myocardium was evaluated on Mean activation recovery interval (ARI) at 500 ms pacing cycle length (p=.43). In a porcine myocardial infarction model, there were no significant differences in mean activation recovery interval or local ARI gradients between areas of late gadolinium enhancement and healthy myocardium.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: