Key result
Multipolar activation mapping is linked to ~30-point higher diastolic potential detection than bipolar mapping.
Why the study?
The performance of multipolar electrogram mapping in identifying critical activation pathways and substrates in scar-related ventricular tachycardia was not well characterized.
Does multipolar electrogram mapping improve the identification of critical activation pathways and substrates in scar-related ventricular tachycardia compared to bipolar mapping?
Observational (n=45)
Does multipolar electrogram mapping improve the identification of critical activation pathways and substrates in scar-related ventricular tachycardia compared to bipolar mapping?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 46%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Multipolar electrogram mapping improves the detection of diastolic potentials during ventricular tachycardia activation but is less sensitive than bipolar mapping for identifying VT substrates like LAVA and late potentials.
Multipolar electrograms may aid VT substrate mapping in scar; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Multipolar electrogram is designed to improve near-field (NF) signal clarity by subtracting far-field (FF) components using adjacent electrodes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of multipolar electrogram mapping in identifying critical activation pathways and substrates in ventricular tachycardia (VT). METHODS: Scar-related VT maps created using the CARTO™3 system and Optrell™ catheter were analyzed. Bipolar VT activation maps were created using wavefront algorithm (annotating unipolar maximum -dV/dt), while substrate maps employed late annotation mapping (LAM). Bipolar maps were converted into multipolar maps offline using the CARTOREPLAY RESULTS: A total of 3,636 electrograms from 53 maps (45 patients, age 64±9 years, 87% male, 57% ischemic) were analyzed. Multipolar signals showed higher NF/FF amplitude ratio than bipolar signals (1.50 [0.61-3.08] vs. 1.19 [0.52-2.60], p<0.0001). Multipolar activation mapping more accurately identified diastolic potentials than bipolar wavefront mapping (76% vs. 46%, p<0.0001). However, multipolar substrate mapping was less sensitive in detecting LAVA/LP than bipolar LAM (80% vs. 92%, p<0.0001). Of 30 maps with LPs, 87% had LPs missed by the multipolar algorithm but captured by LAM. Smaller NF / larger FF amplitudes and perimeter electrodes predicted multipolar annotation errors. CONCLUSIONS: Multipolar activation mapping enhances diastolic potential detection but reduces sensitivity for VT substrate identification compared to bipolar LAM. These findings inform optimal electrogram annotation approaches for VT activation and substrate mapping.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamamoto et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Scar-Related Ventricular Tachycardia (n=45). Multipolar electrogram mapping vs. Bipolar electrogram mapping was evaluated on Identification of diastolic potentials (p=<0.0001). Multipolar activation mapping improved diastolic potential detection compared to bipolar mapping (76% vs 46%, p<0.0001) but reduced sensitivity for VT substrate identification (80% vs 92%, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: