Noncontact dipole density mapping provided comparable atrial electrogram measurements to contact mapping in sinus rhythm (correlation 0.85) and AF (correlation 0.79) when ≤40 mm from the catheter.
Observational (n=20)
Does noncontact dipole density mapping provide comparable electrogram measurements to contact mapping in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Noncontact dipole density mapping provides comparable reconstructed atrial electrogram measurements to contact mapping when the anatomical site is ≤40 mm from the catheter.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to validate the accuracy of noncontact electrograms against contact electrograms in the left atrium during sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Noncontact mapping offers the opportunity to assess global cardiac activation in the chamber of interest. A novel noncontact mapping system, which records intracardiac voltage to derive cellular charge sources (dipole density), allows real-time mapping of AF to guide ablation. METHODS: Noncontact and contact unipolar electrogram pairs were recorded simultaneously from multiple locations. Morphology correlation and timing difference of reconstructed electrograms obtained from a noncontact catheter were compared with those from contact electrograms obtained from a contact catheter at the same endocardial locations. RESULTS: A total of 796 electrogram pairs in SR and 969 electrogram pairs in AF were compared from 20 patients with persistent AF. The median morphology correlation and timing difference (ms) in SR was 0.85 (interquartile range IQR: 0.71 to 0.94) and 6.4 ms (IQR: 2.6 to 17.1 ms); in AF was 0.79 (IQR: 0.69 to 0.88) and 14.4 ms (IQR: 6.7 to 26.2 ms), respectively. The correlation was stronger and the timing difference was less when the radial distance (r) from the noncontact catheter center to the endocardium was ≤ 40 versus > 40 mm; 0.87 (IQR: 0.72 to 0.94) versus 0.73 (IQR: 0.56 to 0.88) and 5.7 ms (IQR: 2.6 to 15.4 ms) versus 15.1 ms (IQR: 4.1 to 27.7 ms); p < 0.01 when in SR; 0.81 (IQR: 0.69 to 0.89) versus 0.67 (IQR: 0.45 to 0.82) and 12.3 ms (IQR: 5.9 to 21.8 ms) versus 28.3 ms (IQR: 16.2 to 36.0 ms); p < 0.01 when in AF. CONCLUSIONS: This novel noncontact dipole density mapping system provides comparable reconstructed atrial electrogram measurements in SR or AF in human left atrium when the anatomical site of interest is ≤40 mm from the mapping catheter.
Shi et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=20). Noncontact dipole density mapping system vs. Contact electrograms was evaluated on Morphology correlation and timing difference of reconstructed electrograms. Noncontact dipole density mapping provided comparable atrial electrogram measurements to contact mapping in sinus rhythm (correlation 0.85) and AF (correlation 0.79) when ≤40 mm from the catheter.