CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146ECG Monitoring and AnalysisCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance and limitations of noninvasive cardiac activation mapping

Open access
Duchateau, Josselin, Sacher, Frédéric, Pambrun, Thomas, Derval, Nicolas, Chamorro-Servent, Judit, Denis, Arnaud, Ploux, Sylvain, Hocini, Mélèze, Jaïs, Pierre, Bernus, Olivier, Haïssaguerre, Michel, Dubois, Rémi·2019·Heart Rhythm
DOI 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.10.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Activation mapping using noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) has recently been used to describe the physiology of different cardiac abnormalities. These descriptions differ from prior invasive studies, and both methods have not been thoroughly confronted in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to provide validation of noninvasive activation mapping in a clinical setting through direct confrontation with invasive epicardial contact measures. METHODS: Fifty-nine maps were obtained in 55 patients and aligned on a common geometry. Nearest-neighbor interpolation was used to avoid map smoothing. Quantitative comparison was performed by computing between-map correlation coefficients and absolute activation time errors. RESULTS: The mean activation time error was 20.4 ± 8.6 ms, and the between-map correlation was poor (0.03 ± 0.43). The results suggested high interpatient variability (correlation -0.68 to 0.82), wide QRS patterns, and paced rhythms demonstrating significantly better mean correlation (0.68 ± 0.17). Errors were greater in scarred regions (21.9 ± 10.8 ms vs 17.5 ± 6.7 ms; P < .01). Fewer epicardial breakthroughs were imaged using noninvasive mapping (1.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.3 ± 0.7; P < .01). Primary breakthrough locations were imaged 75.7 ± 38.1 mm apart. Lines of conduction block (jumps of ≥50 ms between contiguous points) due to structural anomalies were recorded in 27 of 59 contact maps and were not visualized at these same sites noninvasively. Instead, artificial lines appeared in 33 of 59 noninvasive maps in regions of reduced bipolar voltage amplitudes (P = .03). An in silico model confirms these artificial constructs. CONCLUSION: Overall, agreement of ECGi activation mapping and contact mapping is poor and heterogeneous. The between-map correlation is good for wide QRS patterns. Lines of block and epicardial breakthrough sites imaged using ECGi are inaccurate. Further work is required to improve the accuracy of the technique.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.10.010

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large body of literature has provided evidence that MCG enhances the non-invasive diagnostic and prognostic capability in numerous clinical fields, including earlier detection of myocardial ischemia, preventive arrhythmogenic risk assessment in adults and fetuses, and diagnosis of inflammatory cardiomyopathy and microvascular diseases.

    “Indeed, a large body of literature has provided evidence that MCG enhances the non-invasive diagnostic and prognostic capability in numerous clinical fields, such as but not limited to the earlier detection of (sometimes electrically silent) myocardial ischemia (59, 88, 90, 323, 319), the preventive arrhythmogenic risk assessment in adults (53, 225, 325–322) as well as in fetuses (83, 323, 324),”

    From Clinical magnetocardiography: the unshielded bet—past, present, and future (2023) · cites this paper as [323]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Duchateau, J., Sacher, F., Pambrun, T., Derval, N., Chamorro-Servent, J., Denis, A., Ploux, S., Hocini, M., Jaïs, P., Bernus, O., Haïssaguerre, M., & Dubois, R.
Affiliations
Université de Bordeaux (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Heart Rhythm
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
435-442
ISSN
1547-5271 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.10.010
OpenAlex
W2898464271
Cited by
146
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23
FWCI
14.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Heart Rhythm (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (IHU LIRYC ANR-10-IAHU-04)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
electrocardiographic imaging, interpatient variability, conduction block, myocardial scar, pacing, bipolar voltage, in silico models
MeSH terms
Adult, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Body Surface Potential Mapping, Epicardial Mapping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review