基于电位的心电图成像的激活时间估算比较。

Computing in cardiology Pub Date : 2019-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-02-24 DOI:10.22489/cinc.2019.379
Matthias Schaufelberger, Steffen Schuler, Laura Bear, Matthijs Cluitmans, Jaume Coll-Font, Önder Nazim Onak, Olaf Dössel, Dana Brooks
{"title":"基于电位的心电图成像的激活时间估算比较。","authors":"Matthias Schaufelberger, Steffen Schuler, Laura Bear, Matthijs Cluitmans, Jaume Coll-Font, Önder Nazim Onak, Olaf Dössel, Dana Brooks","doi":"10.22489/cinc.2019.379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Activation times (AT) describe the sequence of cardiac depolarization and represent one of the most important parameters for analysis of cardiac electrical activity. However, estimation of ATs can be challenging due to multiple sources of noise such as fractionation or baseline wander. If ATs are estimated from signals reconstructed using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI), additional problems can arise from over-smoothing or due to ambiguities in the inverse problem. Often, resulting AT maps show falsely homogeneous regions or artificial lines of block. As ATs are not only important clinically, but are also commonly used for evaluation of ECGI methods, it is important to understand where these errors come from. We present results from a community effort to compare methods for AT estimation on a common dataset of simulated ventricular pacings. ECGI reconstructions were performed using three different surface source models: transmembrane voltages, epi-endo potentials and pericardial potentials, all using 2nd-order Tikhonov and 6 different regularization parameters. ATs were then estimated by the community participants and compared to the ground truth. While the pacing site had the largest effect on AT correlation coefficients (CC larger for lateral than for septal pacings), there were also differences between methods and source models that were poorly reflected in CCs. Results indicate that artificial lines of block are most severe for purely temporal methods. Compared to the other source models, ATs estimated from transmembrane voltages are more precise and less prone to artifacts.</p>","PeriodicalId":72683,"journal":{"name":"Computing in cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079739/pdf/nihms-1562060.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Schaufelberger, Steffen Schuler, Laura Bear, Matthijs Cluitmans, Jaume Coll-Font, Önder Nazim Onak, Olaf Dössel, Dana Brooks\",\"doi\":\"10.22489/cinc.2019.379\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Activation times (AT) describe the sequence of cardiac depolarization and represent one of the most important parameters for analysis of cardiac electrical activity. However, estimation of ATs can be challenging due to multiple sources of noise such as fractionation or baseline wander. If ATs are estimated from signals reconstructed using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI), additional problems can arise from over-smoothing or due to ambiguities in the inverse problem. Often, resulting AT maps show falsely homogeneous regions or artificial lines of block. As ATs are not only important clinically, but are also commonly used for evaluation of ECGI methods, it is important to understand where these errors come from. We present results from a community effort to compare methods for AT estimation on a common dataset of simulated ventricular pacings. ECGI reconstructions were performed using three different surface source models: transmembrane voltages, epi-endo potentials and pericardial potentials, all using 2nd-order Tikhonov and 6 different regularization parameters. ATs were then estimated by the community participants and compared to the ground truth. While the pacing site had the largest effect on AT correlation coefficients (CC larger for lateral than for septal pacings), there were also differences between methods and source models that were poorly reflected in CCs. Results indicate that artificial lines of block are most severe for purely temporal methods. Compared to the other source models, ATs estimated from transmembrane voltages are more precise and less prone to artifacts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computing in cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079739/pdf/nihms-1562060.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computing in cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22489/cinc.2019.379\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/2/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computing in cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22489/cinc.2019.379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

激活时间(AT)描述了心脏去极化的顺序,是分析心电活动最重要的参数之一。然而,由于分化或基线漂移等多种噪声源,估计激活时间可能具有挑战性。如果 AT 是通过心电图成像(ECGI)重建的信号估算的,则可能会因过度平滑或反问题的模糊性而产生额外的问题。通常情况下,所绘制的 AT 图会显示虚假的同质区域或人为的阻滞线。由于 AT 不仅在临床上非常重要,而且常用于评估心电图成像方法,因此了解这些误差的来源非常重要。我们介绍了一项社区活动的结果,该活动旨在比较在模拟心室起搏的通用数据集上估计 AT 的方法。我们使用三种不同的表面源模型进行了心电图成像重建:跨膜电压、外腱膜电位和心包电位,所有模型均使用二阶 Tikhonov 和 6 个不同的正则化参数。然后由社区参与者估算 ATs,并与地面实况进行比较。虽然起搏部位对 AT 相关系数的影响最大(外侧起搏的 CC 比室间隔起搏的 CC 大),但不同方法和源模型之间也存在差异,这些差异在 CC 中反映不清。结果表明,人工阻滞线在纯时间方法中最为严重。与其他信号源模型相比,通过跨膜电压估计的 AT 更精确,更不易出现伪差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.

Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.

Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.

Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.

Activation times (AT) describe the sequence of cardiac depolarization and represent one of the most important parameters for analysis of cardiac electrical activity. However, estimation of ATs can be challenging due to multiple sources of noise such as fractionation or baseline wander. If ATs are estimated from signals reconstructed using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI), additional problems can arise from over-smoothing or due to ambiguities in the inverse problem. Often, resulting AT maps show falsely homogeneous regions or artificial lines of block. As ATs are not only important clinically, but are also commonly used for evaluation of ECGI methods, it is important to understand where these errors come from. We present results from a community effort to compare methods for AT estimation on a common dataset of simulated ventricular pacings. ECGI reconstructions were performed using three different surface source models: transmembrane voltages, epi-endo potentials and pericardial potentials, all using 2nd-order Tikhonov and 6 different regularization parameters. ATs were then estimated by the community participants and compared to the ground truth. While the pacing site had the largest effect on AT correlation coefficients (CC larger for lateral than for septal pacings), there were also differences between methods and source models that were poorly reflected in CCs. Results indicate that artificial lines of block are most severe for purely temporal methods. Compared to the other source models, ATs estimated from transmembrane voltages are more precise and less prone to artifacts.

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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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