Lesina Krista, Szili-Torok Tamas, Peters Emile, de Wit André, Wijchers Sip A, Bhagwandien Rohit E, Yap Sing-Chien, Hirsch Alexander, Hoogendijk Mark G
Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Front Physiol. 2022 Apr 26;13:870435. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.870435. eCollection 2022.
The clinical value of non-invasive mapping system depends on its accuracy under common variations of the inputs. The View Into Ventricular Onset (VIVO) system matches simulated QRS complexes of a patient-specific anatomical model with a 12-lead ECG to estimate the origin of ventricular arrhythmias. We aim to test the performance of the VIVO system and its sensitivity to changes in the anatomical model, time marker placement to demarcate the QRS complex and body position. Non-invasive activation maps of idiopathic premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) using a patient-specific or generic anatomical model were matched with the location during electrophysiological studies. Activation maps were analyzed before and after systematically changing the time marker placement. Morphologically identical PVCs recorded in supine and sitting position were compared in a subgroup. Non-invasive activation maps of 48 patients (age 51 ± 14 years, 28 female) were analyzed. The origin of the PVCs as determined by VIVO system matched with the clinical localization in 36/48 (75%) patients. Mismatches were more common for PVCs of left than right ventricular origin [11/27 (41%) vs. 1/21 (5%) of cases, < 0.01]. The first 32 cases were analyzed for robustness testing of the VIVO system. Changing the patient-specific vs. the generic anatomical model reduced the accuracy from 23/32 (72%) to 15/32 (47%), < 0.05. Time marker placement in the QRS complex (delayed onset or advanced end marker) or in the ST-segment (delaying the QRS complex end marker) resulted in progressive shifts in origins of PVCs. Altered body positions did not change the predicted origin of PVCs in most patients [clinically unchanged 11/15 (73%)]. VIVO activation mapping is sensitive to changes in the anatomical model and time marker placement but less to altered body position.
非侵入性标测系统的临床价值取决于其在常见输入变化情况下的准确性。心室起始观察(VIVO)系统将患者特异性解剖模型的模拟QRS波群与12导联心电图进行匹配,以估计室性心律失常的起源。我们旨在测试VIVO系统的性能及其对解剖模型变化、用于界定QRS波群的时间标记放置以及身体位置的敏感性。使用患者特异性或通用解剖模型生成的特发性室性早搏(PVC)的非侵入性激动标测图与电生理研究期间的位置进行匹配。在系统改变时间标记放置之前和之后对激动标测图进行分析。在一个亚组中比较了仰卧位和坐位记录的形态相同的PVC。分析了48例患者(年龄51±14岁,28例女性)的非侵入性激动标测图。VIVO系统确定的PVC起源与36/48(75%)患者的临床定位相符。左心室起源的PVC比右心室起源的PVC更常见不匹配情况[11/27(41%)对1/21(5%)病例,<0.01]。对前32例病例进行了VIVO系统的稳健性测试。从患者特异性解剖模型改为通用解剖模型,准确性从23/32(72%)降至15/32(47%),<0.05。在QRS波群中放置时间标记(起始延迟或结束标记提前)或在ST段放置时间标记(延迟QRS波群结束标记)导致PVC起源逐渐偏移。在大多数患者中,身体位置改变并未改变PVC的预测起源[临床上未改变11/15(73%)]。VIVO激动标测对解剖模型和时间标记放置的变化敏感,但对身体位置改变的敏感性较低。