Key result
Closer interbipole spacing and closer proximity to the atrial wall during atrial fibrillation resulted in lower calculated atrial rates, higher electrogram amplitudes, and higher apdf values (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does bipole configuration affect the calculated atrial rate, amplitude, and apdf during atrial fibrillation in patients with sustained AF?
Population
15 patients with sustained atrial fibrillation
Comparison
Recording of intra-atrial electrograms using… vs Comparison among the four different bipole…
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Bipole configuration requires standardized protocols in AF mapping; challenges consensus on rate/apdf detection criteria and leaves optimal settings open.
Observational (n=15)
Does bipole configuration affect the calculated atrial rate, amplitude, and apdf during atrial fibrillation in patients with sustained AF?
p-value: p=<0.001
Bipole configuration significantly affects calculated atrial rate, amplitude, and apdf during atrial fibrillation, suggesting that median frequency may be a more robust measure for characterizing AF.
Baerman et al. (1990) conducted an observational in Sustained atrial fibrillation (n=15). Bipole configurations (varying spacing and distance from atrial wall) vs. Different bipole configurations was evaluated on Atrial rate, electrogram amplitude, amplitude probability density function (apdf), median frequency, and electrogram morphology (p=<0.001). Closer interbipole spacing and closer proximity to the atrial wall during atrial fibrillation resulted in lower calculated atrial rates, higher electrogram amplitudes, and higher apdf values (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: