Key result
Phase analysis of atrial electrograms accurately detected only 82% of total activation times compared to manual measurements, highlighting the need for visual review of original electrograms.
Why the study?
Phase analysis converted from atrial electrograms can misinterpret atrial activation patterns, prompting an evaluation of its accuracy in detecting activations from high-density mapping in persistent and long-standing persistent AF.
Does phase analysis accurately detect atrial activations compared to manual measurements in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF?
Observational (n=7)
Does phase analysis accurately detect atrial activations compared to manual measurements in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF?
Phase analysis of atrial electrograms during AF is prone to inaccuracies, particularly in areas with complex or irregular signals, necessitating visual confirmation before targeted ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase analysis of atrial electrograms in persistent AF requires manual verification; cross-sectional data leaves open its reliability for ablation guidance without prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Phase analysis has been used to identify and localize atrial fibrillation (AF) sources for targeted ablation. We previously demonstrated that repetitive wannabe reentry (incomplete reentry) often generated an apparent stable rotor using phase analysis. The misinterpretation caused by phase analysis using atrial electrograms (AEGs) may result from detecting inaccurate time points at phase inversion (π to -π) in the instantaneous phase waveform converted from AEG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of phase analysis to detect atrial activations recorded from the high-density mapping of AF in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent (LSP) AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: During open heart surgery, we recorded activation from both atria simultaneously using 512 electrodes in 7 patients with persistent and LSP AF. The phase analysis was compared to manual measurements during 4 s of data. For the accuracy of activation sequence maps, a successful recording site was defined as having ≤4 mismatched activation times during the 4 s. In all AF episodes, the accuracy of the phase analysis was only 82% of the total number of activation times due to either activation time differences (14.7%), under-sensing (2.7%), or over-sensing (0.6%). Only 67.9% of the total recording sites met the requirement of a successful recording site by phase analysis. In unsuccessful recording sites, AEG characteristics were relatively irregular cycle length (CL), complex AEG, and double potential AEG. CONCLUSION: The phase analysis was less accurate in recording sites with a relatively irregular CL, complex AEG, or double potential AEG. As a result, phase analysis may lead to the misinterpretation of atrial activation patterns during AF. A visual review of the original AEG is needed to confirm the detected AF sources of phase analysis before performing targeted ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (n=7). Phase analysis of atrial electrograms vs. Manual measurements was evaluated on Accuracy of phase analysis to detect atrial activations compared to manual measurements. Phase analysis of atrial electrograms accurately detected only 82% of total activation times compared to manual measurements, highlighting the need for visual review of original electrograms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: