局灶性室性早搏消融的远端双极电图定量分析

IF 1.7 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Sun Young Jeong MD, MPH, Nigel Gupta MD, Zhilin Qu PhD, Sen Ji MD, PhD
{"title":"局灶性室性早搏消融的远端双极电图定量分析","authors":"Sun Young Jeong MD, MPH,&nbsp;Nigel Gupta MD,&nbsp;Zhilin Qu PhD,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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 &lt;</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 &gt;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":1.7000,"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":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative analyses of the distal bipolar electrogram for focal premature ventricular contraction ablation\",\"authors\":\"Sun Young Jeong MD, MPH,&nbsp;Nigel Gupta MD,&nbsp;Zhilin Qu PhD,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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 &lt;</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 &gt;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\":1.7000,\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Quantitative analyses of the distal bipolar electrogram for focal premature ventricular contraction ablation

Quantitative analyses of the distal bipolar electrogram for focal premature ventricular contraction ablation

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Arrhythmia
Journal of Arrhythmia CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信