Sun Young Jeong MD, MPH, Nigel Gupta MD, Zhilin Qu PhD, Sen Ji MD, PhD
{"title":"Quantitative analyses of the distal bipolar electrogram for focal premature ventricular contraction ablation","authors":"Sun Young Jeong MD, MPH, Nigel Gupta MD, Zhilin Qu PhD, Sen Ji MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Accurate interpretation of the distal bipolar electrogram (bi-EGM) is essential for successful ablation of idiopathic focal PVC. Sharp, early, and fractionated bi-EGM is often considered to be near-field and targeted, but in an empiric fashion rather than by quantitative criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To quantify the distal bi-EGM with five parameters to elucidate quantitative criteria distinguishing near-field from far-field bi-EGM.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The distal bi-EGM was quantified and analyzed using: half time of activation (<i>t</i><sub>½</sub>), slope factor (<i>S</i>, derived by fitting the Boltzmann equation), linear slope (<i>dV/dt</i>), time from onset of bi-EGM to surface ECG (<i>T</i><sub>s</sub>) and number of deflections (<i>De</i>#).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 41 patients, 26 were ablated successfully and 15 unsuccessfully. <i>t</i><sub>½</sub> and <i>S</i>, defining the sharpness of the activation process, were significantly different between the two groups (3.2 ± 0.3 vs. 5.9 ± 0.6 ms, <i>p</i> < 0.001 and 0.8 ± 0.1 vs. 4.8 ± 2.0, <i>p</i> = 0.01). <i>T</i><sub>s</sub> was earlier in the successful group (35.6 ± 1.3 vs. 25.8 ± 1.6 ms, <i>p <</i> 0.01). <i>dV/dt</i> and <i>De#</i> were not statistically different (0.2 ± 0.04 vs. 0.1 ± 0.02 mV/ms, <i>p</i> = 0.06; and 2.7 ± 0.2 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3, <i>p</i> = 0.22). The 5 parameters showed indifference across anatomic locations. AUCs of ROC curve are >0.8 (<i>t</i><sub>½</sub> 0.85, <i>S</i> 0.85 and <i>T</i><sub>s</sub> 0.87).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p><i>t</i><sub>½</sub>, <i>S</i> and <i>T</i><sub>s</sub> are precise in quantifying the sharpness and earliness of distal bi-EGM; therefore, discriminating the near-field from far-field bi-EGM for guiding successful ablation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.70103","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.70103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Accurate interpretation of the distal bipolar electrogram (bi-EGM) is essential for successful ablation of idiopathic focal PVC. Sharp, early, and fractionated bi-EGM is often considered to be near-field and targeted, but in an empiric fashion rather than by quantitative criteria.
Objectives
To quantify the distal bi-EGM with five parameters to elucidate quantitative criteria distinguishing near-field from far-field bi-EGM.
Methods
The distal bi-EGM was quantified and analyzed using: half time of activation (t½), slope factor (S, derived by fitting the Boltzmann equation), linear slope (dV/dt), time from onset of bi-EGM to surface ECG (Ts) and number of deflections (De#).
Results
Among 41 patients, 26 were ablated successfully and 15 unsuccessfully. t½ and S, defining the sharpness of the activation process, were significantly different between the two groups (3.2 ± 0.3 vs. 5.9 ± 0.6 ms, p < 0.001 and 0.8 ± 0.1 vs. 4.8 ± 2.0, p = 0.01). Ts was earlier in the successful group (35.6 ± 1.3 vs. 25.8 ± 1.6 ms, p < 0.01). dV/dt and De# were not statistically different (0.2 ± 0.04 vs. 0.1 ± 0.02 mV/ms, p = 0.06; and 2.7 ± 0.2 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3, p = 0.22). The 5 parameters showed indifference across anatomic locations. AUCs of ROC curve are >0.8 (t½ 0.85, S 0.85 and Ts 0.87).
Conclusion
t½, S and Ts are precise in quantifying the sharpness and earliness of distal bi-EGM; therefore, discriminating the near-field from far-field bi-EGM for guiding successful ablation.
背景:准确解读远端双极电图(bi-EGM)对于成功消融特发性局灶性PVC至关重要。尖锐的、早期的和分块的双egm通常被认为是近场的和有针对性的,但以经验的方式而不是定量的标准。目的用5个参数对远场双egm进行定量分析,阐明区分远场双egm和近场双egm的定量标准。方法采用半激活时间(t½)、斜率因子(S,由Boltzmann方程拟合得出)、线性斜率(dV/dt)、双egm发生时间(Ts)和偏转次数(De#)对远端双egm进行定量分析。结果41例患者成功消融26例,不成功15例。t½和S,定义激活过程的清晰度,在两组之间有显著差异(3.2±0.3 vs 5.9±0.6 ms, p <; 0.001和0.8±0.1 vs 4.8±2.0,p = 0.01)。成功组Ts更早(35.6±1.3 ms比25.8±1.6 ms, p < 0.01)。dV/dt、De#差异无统计学意义(0.2±0.04 vs. 0.1±0.02 mV/ms, p = 0.06;2.7±0.2 vs. 2.3±0.3,p = 0.22)。5个参数在不同解剖部位无差异。ROC曲线auc为>;0.8 (t½0.85,S 0.85, t 0.87)。结论t1 / 2、S和Ts能准确地量化远端双egm的锐度和早期程度;因此,区分近场和远场双egm可以指导成功的烧蚀。