Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010 Feb;21(2):133-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01595.x. Epub 2009 Sep 28.
Complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) have become targets for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Frequency components of AF signals have also become important markers for identifying potential mechanisms of AF, yet inaccuracies exist, particularly in standard dominant frequency (SDF) calculations especially at CFAE sites. We developed new methodology to improve accuracy of AF rate determinations at such recording sites.
To develop optimal methods for estimating activation rates in paroxysmal and persistent AF.
Electrograms were obtained from one right atrial, coronary sinus, and 6 left atrial (LA) endocardial regions manifesting CFAEs in paroxysmal (N = 7) and persistent (N = 7) AF patients. SDF was measured from 8.4 s intervals and compared to (1) optimized DF (ODF) calculated by optimizing the filter coefficients which maximized dominant frequency power, (2) autocorrelation (AC), with the rate estimated as the inverse of the signal phase shift generating the largest autocorrelation coefficient, and (3) ensemble average (EA), with the rate estimated by summing successive signal segments and selecting segment length yielding maximum power. Rate measurements were compared between groups, at baseline and with additive interference, having similar frequency content to the electrograms, to test the robustness of the different methods.
From pooled data (N = 168 recording sites), a significantly higher LA dominant frequency was found in persistent versus paroxysmal patients using each method (P < 0.001), with a mean value for all methods of 6.23 +/- 0.08 Hz versus 5.32 +/- 0.10 Hz, respectively. At the highest additive interference level, the rate measurement error was significantly greater in SDF as compared with EA (P = 0.010) and ODF (P = 0.035), and at all interference levels SDF had the largest error of any method.
SDF appears less robust to additive interference, compared to the ODF and EA methods of estimating the activation rate at CFAE sites in this small group of patients. Use of optimized filter coefficients for DF measurement, or use of correlative methods such as EA, that reinforce the signal rather than filtering the noise, may improve calculation of activation rates.
复杂碎裂心房电图(CFAE)已成为心房颤动(AF)导管消融的目标。AF 信号的频率成分也已成为识别 AF 潜在机制的重要标志物,但存在不准确之处,尤其是在标准主导频率(SDF)计算中,尤其是在 CFAE 部位。我们开发了一种新的方法来提高在这些记录部位确定 AF 率的准确性。
开发用于确定阵发性和持续性 AF 激活率的最佳方法。
在阵发性(N=7)和持续性(N=7)AF 患者的一个右心房、冠状窦和 6 个左心房(LA)心内膜区域获得电描记图。从 8.4 s 间隔测量 SDF,并与(1)通过优化滤波器系数(最大主导频率功率)计算的优化 DF(ODF),(2)自相关(AC)进行比较,其中通过将信号相位延迟生成最大自相关系数的倒数来估计速率,(3)集合平均(EA),通过对连续信号段求和并选择产生最大功率的段长来估计速率。在基线和添加具有与电描记图相似频率内容的干扰时,比较不同组之间的速率测量值,以测试不同方法的稳健性。
从汇总数据(N=168 个记录部位)来看,使用每种方法,持续性 AF 患者的 LA 主导频率均明显高于阵发性患者(P <0.001),所有方法的平均值分别为 6.23 +/- 0.08 Hz 与 5.32 +/- 0.10 Hz。在最高添加干扰水平下,与 EA(P=0.010)和 ODF(P=0.035)相比,SDF 的速率测量误差明显更大,并且在所有干扰水平下,SDF 的误差都大于任何方法。
与 ODF 和 EA 方法相比,SDF 在该小患者组的 CFAE 部位的激活率估计中对附加干扰的稳健性较差。使用优化的 DF 测量滤波器系数,或使用增强信号而不是滤波噪声的相关方法(如 EA),可能会提高激活率的计算。