Why the study?
Subtle variations in ventricular activation and recovery dynamics are challenging to detect and localize on 12-lead ECG due to limited spatial resolution, making ECGI a potential high-resolution mapping alternative.
Can electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) detect and localize dynamic variability of ventricular activation and recovery in normal subjects?
Can electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) detect and localize dynamic variability of ventricular activation and recovery in normal subjects?
Noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging can detect subtle physiological variations in ventricular activation and recovery dynamics, providing a basis for future arrhythmia research.
ECGI may map ventricular activation-recovery dynamics in normals; hypothesis-generating for arrhythmia substrate research.
Dynamic variability of ventricular activation and recovery can be a physiological phenomenon, but is also known to increase susceptibility to arrhythmias. It has been extensively studied on the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), but subtle (patho)physiological variations may be challenging to detect and localize due to the limited spatial resolution. Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) could be a useful noninvasive high-resolution mapping technique to investigate ventricular dynamics in more detail. Ventricular activation and recovery times (ATs and RTs) were examined using ECGI in 10 normal subjects. Zero-th order Tikhonov regularization was used in combination with a spatiotemporal estimation method to determine ATs and RTs. Dynamics were defined as standard deviations of ventricular ATs and RTs over three beats. Dynamics were higher for recovery than for activation during sinus rhythm, and significantly exaggerated after ventricular ectopy. Left ventricular areas were less dynamic than right ventricular areas. Since arrhythmias may arise due to an increase in ventricular dynamics in the diseased heart, these results provide an important basis for future research on ventricular dynamics and arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stoks et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: