Arrhythmia Section, Department of Cardiology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Avda Manuel Siurot s/n, Seville, Spain.
Arrhythmia Section, Department of Cardiology, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clínic and IDIBAPS (Institut d'Investigació Agustí Pi i Sunyer), C/Villarroel 170, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Europace. 2018 Sep 1;20(FI2):f171-f178. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux306.
Current navigation systems incorporate algorithms for automatic identification of local activation time (LAT). However, data about their utility and accuracy in premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation procedures are scarce. This study analyses the accuracy of an algorithmic method based on automatic annotation of the maximal negative slope of the unipolar electrogram within the window demarcated by the bipolar electrogram compared with conventional manual annotation during PVC ablation procedures.
Forty patients with successful ablation of focal PVC in three centres were included. Electroanatomical activation maps obtained with the automatic system (WF-map) were compared with manual annotation maps (M-map). Correlation and concordance of LAT obtained with both methods were assessed at 3536 points. The distance between the earliest activation site (EAS) and the effective radiofrequency application point (e-RFp) were determined in M-map and WF-map. The distance between WF-EAS and M-EAS was assessed. Successful ablation sites included left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT; 55%), right ventricular outflow tract (40%), and tricuspid annulus (5%). Good correlation was observed between the two annotation approaches (r = 0.655; P < 0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a systematic delayed detection of LAT by WF-map (bias 33.8 ± 30.9 ms), being higher in LVOT than in the right ventricle (42.6 ± 29.2 vs. 27.2 ± 30.5 ms, respectively; P < 0.0001). No difference in EAS-eRFp distance was observed between M-map and WF-map (1.8 ± 2.8 vs. 1.8 ± 3.4 mm, respectively; P = 0.986). The median (interquartile range) distance between WF-EAS and M-EAS was 2.2(0-6) mm.
Good correlation was found between M-map and WF-map. Local activation time detection was systematically delayed in WF-map, especially in LVOT. Accurate identification of e-RFp was achieved with both annotation approaches.
目前的导航系统包含自动识别局部激活时间(LAT)的算法。然而,关于其在室性早搏(PVC)消融术中的实用性和准确性的数据很少。本研究分析了一种基于自动标注双极电图窗口内单极电图最大负斜率算法方法与 PVC 消融术中常规手动标注相比的准确性。
共纳入 3 个中心 40 例成功消融局灶性 PVC 的患者。自动系统(WF-map)获得的电解剖激活图与手动标注图(M-map)进行比较。评估两种方法在 3536 个点获得的 LAT 的相关性和一致性。在 M-map 和 WF-map 中确定最早激活部位(EAS)与有效射频应用部位(e-RFp)之间的距离。评估 WF-EAS 与 M-EAS 之间的距离。成功消融部位包括左室流出道(LVOT;55%)、右室流出道(40%)和三尖瓣环(5%)。两种标注方法之间观察到良好的相关性(r=0.655;P<0.0001)。Bland-Altman 分析显示 WF-map 对 LAT 的检测存在系统延迟(偏差 33.8±30.9 ms),LVOT 比右心室更高(分别为 42.6±29.2 与 27.2±30.5 ms;P<0.0001)。在 M-map 和 WF-map 之间,EAS-eRFp 距离无差异(分别为 1.8±2.8 与 1.8±3.4 mm;P=0.986)。WF-EAS 与 M-EAS 之间的中位数(四分位距)距离为 2.2(0-6)mm。
M-map 与 WF-map 之间存在良好的相关性。WF-map 中 LAT 的检测存在系统延迟,尤其是在 LVOT。两种标注方法均能准确识别 e-RFp。