Tsai Wen-Chin, Lin Yenn-Jiang, Tsao Hsuan-Ming, Chang Shih-Lin, Lo Li-Wei, Hu Yu-Feng, Chang Chien-Jung, Tang Wei-Hua, Tuan Ta-Chun, Udyavar Ameya R, Wang Hi-Hung, Chen Shih-Ann
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010 Jan;21(1):21-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01567.x.
CFAEs and the Voltage. Introduction: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) can be guided by the identification of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs). We aimed to study the prediction of the CFAEs defined by an automatic algorithm in different atrial substrates (high voltage areas vs low voltage areas). Methods and Results: This study included 13 patients (age = 56 +/- 12 years, paroxysmal AF = 8 and persistent AF = 5), who underwent mapping and catheter ablation of AF with a NavX system. High-density voltage mapping of the left atrium (LA) was performed during sinus rhythm (SR) (248 +/- 75 sites per patient) followed by that during AF (88 +/- 24 sites per patient). The CFAE maps were based on the automatic-detection algorithm. "Operator-determined CFAEs" were defined according to Nademannee's criteria. A low-voltage zone (LVZ) was defined as a bipolar voltage of less than 0.5 mV during SR. Among a total of 1150 mapping sites, 459 (40%) were categorized as "operator-determined CFAE sites," whereas 691 (60%) were categorized as "operator-determined non-CFAE sites." The sensitivity and negative predictive value increased as the fractionated interval (FI) value of the automatic algorithm increased, but the specificity and positive predictive value decreased. The automatic CFAE algorithm exhibited the highest combined sensitivity and specificity with an FI of <60 ms for the sites inside the LVZ and FI < 70 ms for the sites outside the LVZ, when compared with a single threshold for both the high- and low-voltage groups combined (i.e., no regard for voltage) (ROC: 0.89 vs 0.86). Conclusions: The clinical relevance of the CFAE map would be improved if the calculated index values were accordingly scaled by the electrogram peak-to-peak amplitude.
复杂碎裂心房电图(CFAEs)与电压。引言:心房颤动(AF)的导管消融可通过识别复杂碎裂心房电图(CFAEs)来指导。我们旨在研究由自动算法定义的CFAEs在不同心房基质(高电压区域与低电压区域)中的预测情况。方法与结果:本研究纳入了13例患者(年龄 = 56 ± 12岁,阵发性AF = 8例,持续性AF = 5例),这些患者接受了使用NavX系统进行的AF标测和导管消融。在窦性心律(SR)期间对左心房(LA)进行高密度电压标测(每位患者248 ± 75个位点),随后在AF期间进行标测(每位患者88 ± 24个位点)。CFAE图基于自动检测算法。“操作者确定的CFAEs”根据Nademannee标准定义。低电压区(LVZ)定义为SR期间双极电压小于0.5 mV。在总共1150个标测位点中,459个(40%)被归类为“操作者确定的CFAE位点”,而691个(60%)被归类为“操作者确定的非CFAE位点”。随着自动算法的碎裂间期(FI)值增加,敏感性和阴性预测值升高,但特异性和阳性预测值降低。与高电压和低电压组合并使用单一阈值(即不考虑电压)相比,自动CFAE算法在LVZ内的位点FI < 60 ms以及LVZ外的位点FI < 70 ms时,表现出最高的综合敏感性和特异性(ROC:0.89对0.86)。结论:如果根据电图峰 - 峰振幅相应调整计算出的指标值,CFAE图的临床相关性将得到改善。