Why the study?
Inverse ECG imaging typically requires 32-250 leads to create body surface potential maps (BSPM), limiting routine clinical use.
Does the PaceView inverse ECG method using a 12-lead ECG accurately localize ventricular pacing sites compared to a 99-lead BSPM in patients with CRT?
Does the PaceView inverse ECG method using a 12-lead ECG accurately localize ventricular pacing sites compared to a 99-lead BSPM in patients with CRT?
Noninvasive lead localization using the standard 12-lead ECG is accurate and comparable to 99-lead BSPM, potentially aiding in CRT optimization.
Comparable 12-lead ECG localization errors support feasibility in CRT; leaves open clinical impact pending prospective validation.
Inverse ECG imaging methods typically require 32-250 leads to create body surface potential maps (BSPM), limiting their routine clinical use. This study evaluated the accuracy of PaceView inverse ECG method to localize the left or right ventricular (LV and RV, respectively) pacing leads using either a 99-lead BSPM or the 12-lead ECG. A 99-lead BSPM was recorded in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) during sinus rhythm and sequential LV/RV pacing. The non-contrast CT was performed to localize precisely both ECG electrodes and CRT leads. From a BSPM, nine signals were selected to obtain the 12-lead ECG. Both BSPM and 12-lead ECG were used to localize the RV and LV lead, and the localization error was calculated. Consecutive patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, previously implanted with a CRT device, were enrolled (n = 19). The localization error for the RV/LV lead was 9.0 [IQR 4.8-13.6] / 7.7 [IQR 0.0-10.3] mm using the 12-lead ECG and 9.1 [IQR 5.4-15.7] / 9.8 [IQR 8.6-13.1] mm for the BSPM. Thus, the noninvasive lead localization using the 12-lead ECG was accurate enough and comparable to 99-lead BSPM, potentially increasing the capability of 12-lead ECG for the optimization of the LV/RV pacing sites during CRT implant or for the most favorable programming.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sedova et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: