Key result
Anatomo-electromechanical mapping accurately determined local deformation with good agreement to MRI tagging (R2 = 0.80) and discriminated scar from nonscar segments (AUC 0.84).
Why the study?
Does anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM) accurately measure myocardial strain and identify viable tissue compared to MRI tagging in heart failure patients?
Observational (n=33)
Does anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM) accurately measure myocardial strain and identify viable tissue compared to MRI tagging in heart failure patients?
Effect estimate: R2 = 0.80
AEMM provides accurate local deformation measurements that correlate well with MRI-defined scar extent, offering a potential tool for intraprocedural evaluation during intracardiac therapies.
AEMM may support intraprocedural viability assessment in HF; leaves open prospective outcome validation before practice change.
Objectives This study sought to test the accuracy of strain measurements based on anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM) measurements compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tagging, to evaluate the diagnostic value of AEMM-based strain measurements in the assessment of myocardial viability, and the additional value of AEMM over peak-to-peak local voltages. Background The in vivo identification of viable tissue, evaluation of mechanical contraction, and simultaneous left ventricular activation is currently achieved using multiple complementary techniques. Methods In 33 patients, AEMM maps (NOGA XP, Biologic Delivery Systems, Division of Biosense Webster, a Johnson & Johnson Company, Irwindale, California) and MRI images (Siemens 3T, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) were obtained within 1 month. MRI tagging was used to determine circumferential strain (Ecc) and delayed enhancement to obtain local scar extent (%). Custom software was used to measure Ecc and local area strain (LAS) from the motion field of the AEMM catheter tip. Results Intertechnique agreement for Ecc was good (R2 = 0.80), with nonsignificant bias (0.01 strain units) and narrow limits of agreement (−0.03 to 0.06). Scar segments showed lower absolute strain amplitudes compared with nonscar segments: Ecc (median [first to third quartile]: nonscar −0.10 [−0.15 to −0.06] vs. scar −0.04 [−0.06 to −0.02]) and LAS (−0.20 [−0.27 to −0.14] vs. −0.09 [−0.14 to −0.06]). AEMM strains accurately discriminated between scar and nonscar segments, in particular LAS (area under the curve: 0.84, accuracy = 0.76), which was superior to peak-to-peak voltages (nonscar 9.5 [6.5 to 13.3] mV vs. scar 5.6 [3.4 to 8.3] mV; area under the curve: 0.75). Combination of LAS and peak-to-peak voltages resulted in 86% accuracy. Conclusions An integrated AEMM approach can accurately determine local deformation and correlates with the scar extent. This approach has potential immediate application in the diagnosis, delivery of intracardiac therapies, and their intraprocedural evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maffessanti et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=33). Anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM) vs. MRI tagging was evaluated on Intertechnique agreement for circumferential strain (Ecc) (R2 = 0.80). Anatomo-electromechanical mapping accurately determined local deformation with good agreement to MRI tagging (R2 = 0.80) and discriminated scar from nonscar segments (AUC 0.84).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: