Biviano Angelo B, Coromilas James, Ciaccio Edward J, Whang William, Hickey Kathleen, Garan Hasan
Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011 May;34(5):540-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.02993.x. Epub 2011 Jan 5.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) activation rates have been calculated using both frequency domain and time complex analyses. Direct comparisons of these methods are limited. We report: (1) their correlation when measuring AF activation rates, (2) comparisons of recording durations required to minimize variability, and (3) differences in the temporal reproducibility.
AF activation rates were calculated using domain frequency (DF) (via fast Fourier transform) and time complex (TC) (via beat-to-beat activation measurements) analyses. We compared: (1) AF frequencies derived from each method; (2) successively longer subinterval durations to their 16-second reference intervals, and (3) the correlation between consecutively collected 8-second segments and segments collected 10 minutes apart.
There was low intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.234) when comparing AF activation rates derived using DF versus TC analysis. There was no difference in the frequencies between any of the subintervals compared to their 16-second reference intervals, but variability of measurements was higher for intervals <8 seconds (P < 0.01). Correlations between successive segments and segments taken 10 minutes apart were 0.92 and 0.75 using DF analysis (P < 0.001), and 0.72 and 0.49 using TC analysis (P < 0.001).
There is low correlation between the DF and TC methods of analyzing AF activation rates. While AF rates do not differ between subintervals and 16-second reference electrograms, the variability of measurements is dependent upon the subinterval duration, and increases for durations less than 8 seconds. AF rates were prone to change over a 10-minute time period. These results point out existing clinical limitations of measuring atrial activation rates in AF patients.
心房颤动(AF)的激活率已通过频域分析和时间复杂度分析来计算。对这些方法的直接比较较为有限。我们报告:(1)测量AF激活率时它们之间的相关性,(2)为最小化变异性所需记录时长的比较,以及(3)时间可重复性的差异。
AF激活率通过频域(DF)(通过快速傅里叶变换)和时间复杂度(TC)(通过逐搏激活测量)分析来计算。我们比较了:(1)每种方法得出的AF频率;(2)连续更长的子间隔时长与其16秒参考间隔的比较,以及(3)连续收集的8秒节段与相隔10分钟收集的节段之间的相关性。
比较使用DF分析和TC分析得出的AF激活率时,组内相关系数较低(ICC = 0.234)。与它们的16秒参考间隔相比,任何子间隔之间的频率均无差异,但对于时长<8秒的间隔,测量变异性更高(P < 0.01)。使用DF分析时,连续节段与相隔10分钟采集的节段之间的相关性分别为0.92和0.75(P < 0.001),使用TC分析时分别为0.72和0.49(P < 0.001)。
分析AF激活率的DF和TC方法之间相关性较低。虽然子间隔与16秒参考心电图之间的AF率无差异,但测量变异性取决于子间隔时长,且在时长小于8秒时增加。AF率在10分钟时间段内易于变化。这些结果指出了在AF患者中测量心房激活率的现有临床局限性。