Why the study?
Does virtual ablation targeting dominant frequency terminate AF in in-silico models of persistent AF?
Does virtual ablation targeting dominant frequency terminate AF in in-silico models of persistent AF?
In-silico modeling demonstrates that mother rotors in persistent AF are well represented by dominant frequency, and virtual ablation targeting high DF areas effectively terminates AF.
DF ablation terminates AF in computational models; hypothesis-generating and requires clinical validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Although rotors have been considered among the drivers of atrial fibrillation (AF), the rotor definition is inconsistent. We evaluated the nature of rotors in 2D and 3D in- silico models of persistent AF (PeAF) by analyzing phase singularity (PS), dominant frequency (DF), Shannon entropy (ShEn), and complex fractionated atrial electrogram cycle length (CFAE-CL) and their ablation. METHODS: Mother rotor was spatiotemporally defined as stationary reentries with a meandering tip remaining within half the wavelength and lasting longer than 5 s. We generated 2D- and 3D-maps of the PS, DF, ShEn, and CFAE-CL during AF. The spatial correlations and ablation outcomes targeting each parameter were analyzed. RESULTS: 1. In the 2D PeAF model, we observed a mother rotor that matched relatively well with DF (>9 Hz, 71.0%, p<0.001), ShEn (upper 2.5%, 33.2%, p<0.001), and CFAE-CL (lower 2.5%, 23.7%, p<0.001). 2. The 3D-PeAF model also showed mother rotors that had spatial correlations with DF (>5.5 Hz, 39.7%, p<0.001), ShEn (upper 8.5%, 15.1%, p <0.001), and CFAE (lower 8.5%, 8.0%, p = 0.002). 3. In both the 2D and 3D models, virtual ablation targeting the upper 5% of the DF terminated AF within 20 s, but not the ablations based on long-lasting PS, high ShEn area, or lower CFAE-CL area. CONCLUSION: Mother rotors were observed in both 2D and 3D human AF models. Rotor locations were well represented by DF, and their virtual ablation altered wave dynamics and terminated AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hwang et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: