Key result
Noninvasive magnetocardiographic localization of an amagnetic stimulation catheter was accurate, with a mean distance of 11 +/- 4 mm compared to x-ray fluoroscopy.
Why the study?
Does noninvasive magnetocardiographic localization accurately identify the position of an amagnetic stimulation catheter compared to x-ray fluoroscopy in patients undergoing electrophysiological studies?
Observational (n=5)
Does noninvasive magnetocardiographic localization accurately identify the position of an amagnetic stimulation catheter compared to x-ray fluoroscopy in patients undergoing electrophysiological studies?
Noninvasive magnetocardiographic localization of an amagnetic stimulation catheter is feasible and accurate, suggesting potential as a clinical tool during electrophysiological studies.
MCG localization may enable radiation-free EP mapping; hypothesis-generating in this Level 5 case series.
This study was performed to: (1) evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive magnetocardiographic (MCG) localization of an amagnetic stimulation catheter; (2) validate the feasibility of this multipurpose catheter; and (3) study the characteristics of cardiac evoked fields. A stimulation catheter specially designed to produce no magnetic disturbances was inserted into the heart of five patients after routine electrophysiological studies. The catheter position was documented on biplane cine x-ray images. MCG signals were then recorded in a magnetically shielded room during cardiac pacing. Noninvasive localization of the catheter's tip and stimulated depolarization was computed from measured MCG data using a moving equivalent current-dipole source in patient-specific boundary element torso models. In all five patients, the MCG localizations were anatomically in good agreement with the catheter positions defined from the x-ray images. The mean distance between the position of the tip of the catheter defined from x-ray fluoroscopy and the MCG localization was 11 +/- 4 mm. The mean three-dimensional difference between the MCG localization at the peak stimulus and the MCG localization, during the ventricular evoked response about 3 ms later, was 4 +/- 1 mm calculated from signal-averaged data. The 95% confidence interval of beat-to-beat localization of the tip of the stimulation catheter from ten consecutive beats in the patients was 4 +/- 2 mm. The propagation velocity of the equivalent current dipole between 5 and 10 ms after the peak stimulus was 0.9 +/- 0.2 m/s. The results show that the use of the amagnetic catheter is technically feasible and reliable in clinical studies. The accurate three-dimensional localization of this multipurpose catheter by multichannel MCG suggests that the method could be developed toward a useful clinical tool during electrophysiological studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fenici et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Routine electrophysiological studies (n=5). Noninvasive magnetocardiographic (MCG) localization vs. X-ray fluoroscopy was evaluated on Mean distance between MCG localization and x-ray fluoroscopy (11 +/- 4 mm). Noninvasive magnetocardiographic localization of an amagnetic stimulation catheter was accurate, with a mean distance of 11 +/- 4 mm compared to x-ray fluoroscopy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: