Using a compound anisotropy ratio of approximately 6 allowed boundary-element method ECG models to accurately represent both anisotropies, yielding an RMS error of 46 μV compared to FD models.
Using a compound anisotropy ratio allows BEM-based ECG models to more accurately represent both intracellular and interstitial anisotropies compared to fully isotropic models.
Effect estimate: 46 μV
The boundary-element method (BEM) is widely used for electrocardiogram (ECG) simulation. Its major disadvantage is its perceived inability to deal with the anisotropic electric conductivity of the myocardial interstitium, which led researchers to represent only intracellular anisotropy or neglect anisotropy altogether. We computed ECGs with a BEM model based on dipole sources that accounted for a "compound" anisotropy ratio. The ECGs were compared with those computed by a finite-difference model, in which intracellular and interstitial anisotropy could be represented without compromise. For a given set of conductivities, we always found a compound anisotropy value that led to acceptable differences between BEM and finite-difference results. In contrast, a fully isotropic model produced unacceptably large differences. A model that accounted only for intracellular anisotropy showed intermediate performance. We conclude that using a compound anisotropy ratio allows BEM-based ECG models to more accurately represent both anisotropies.
Potse et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Cardiac electrophysiology modeling (n=1). Boundary-element method (BEM) with compound anisotropy ratio vs. Finite-difference (FD) model was evaluated on Root-mean-square (RMS) difference between BEM and FD simulated ECGs (46 μV). Using a compound anisotropy ratio of approximately 6 allowed boundary-element method ECG models to accurately represent both anisotropies, yielding an RMS error of 46 μV compared to FD models.