A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

In silico pace mapping identifies pacing sites more accurately than inverse body surface potential mapping. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) is a noninvasive technique for ventricular tachycardia ablation planning. However, it is limited to reconstructing epicardial surface activation. In silico pace mapping combines a personalized computational model with clinical electrocardiograms (ECGs) to generate a virtual 3-dimensional pace map.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of ECGi and in silico pace mapping to determine the site of ventricular pacing.

Methods: ECGi recordings were collected during left ventricular (endocardial: n=5; epicardial: n=1), septal (n=3), and right ventricular (RV) apical (n=15) pacing along with compute tomography. Personalized computed tomography-based ventricular-torso computational models were created and aligned with the 252 ECGi vest electrodes. Ventricles were paced at 1000 random sites, and the corresponding body surface potentials (BSPs) and ECGs were derived. In silico pace maps were then reconstructed by correlating all simulated ECGs or BSPs with the corresponding paced clinical signals. The distance (d) between the pacing electrode (ground truth) and the location with the strongest correlation was determined; for ECGi, the site with the earliest activation time was used.

Results: In silico pace mapping consistently outperformed ECGi in locating the pacing origin, with the best results when all BSPs were used. During left ventricular pacing, the spatial accuracy of in silico pacing mapping was 9.5 mm with BSPs and 12.2 mm when using ECGs as compared with 30.8 mm when using ECGi. During RV pacing, d = 26.1 mm using BSPs, d = 30.9 mm using ECGs, and d = 29.1 mm using ECGi.

Conclusion: In silico pace mapping is more accurate than ECGi in detecting paced activation. Performance was optimal when all BSPs were used and reduced during RV apical pacing.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.12.036DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

silico pace
24
pace mapping
20
pacing
8
body surface
8
ecgi
8
left ventricular
8
silico
7
mapping
7
pace
6
bsps
6

Similar Publications