Why the study?
Vector field heterogeneity is a novel omnipolar metric to quantify propagation heterogeneities that may identify ablation sites in scar-related ventricular tachycardia, but its diagnostic value remained to be assessed.
Does vector field heterogeneity (VFH) mapping differentiate VT isthmus sites from bystander and normal voltage areas in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia?
Does vector field heterogeneity (VFH) mapping differentiate VT isthmus sites from bystander and normal voltage areas in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia?
Vector field heterogeneity mapping identifies increased electrical heterogeneity at VT isthmus sites compared to bystanders, but substantial overlap limits its use as a stand-alone diagnostic tool.
VFH may aid VT isthmus identification on substrate maps; leaves open clinical utility without prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Vector field heterogeneity (VFH) is a novel omnipolar metric to quantify local propagation heterogeneities that may identify functionally critical sites for ablation in scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the diagnostic value of VFH to identify abnormal propagation patterns during ventricular substrate mapping and compare VFH in VT isthmus sites (IS), low-voltage bystander area (LVA) , and normal voltage areas (NVAa). METHODS: Substrate maps acquired with a 16-pole grid catheter in patients with scar-related VT were segmented into sites corresponding to IS, LVA, and NVA (defined as omnipolar voltages > and <1.5 mV) based on corresponding VT activation maps. For each 4 × 4 electrode-array acquisition, omnipolar-derived vector maps of the directions of electrical propagation were computed offline, and a VFH value per clique ranging from 0 (perfect planar wave) to 1 (maximal disorganization) derived. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were studied (56.3% ischemic), evaluating 9 endocardial and 7 epicardial substrate maps. VFH metric at IS was 0.57 ± 0.26, LVA 0.52 ± 0.34, and NVA 0.16 ± 0.24. VFH at IS was higher (more disorganized) than at LVA (P < .001). VFH in NVA was significantly lower (ie, more homogeneous) compared with IS and LVA (P < .001, respectively). Within the isthmus, highest heterogeneity was recorded at entry (0.61 ± 0.24), lowest at exit sites (0.44 ± 0.27). CONCLUSION: VFH mapping identified a significant increase in electrical heterogeneity at IS compared with bystanders with highest heterogeneity at the entrance. Yet, absolute differences were small, and substantial overlap among sites was recorded, precluding its use as a stand-alone mapping approach. VFH may be integrated in existing mapping strategies as complementary information to support identification of ablation targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tonko et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: