Cargando…

Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data

Introduction: Localization of premature ventricular contraction (PVC) origin to guide the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure is one of the prominent clinical goals of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging. However, the results reported in the literature vary significantly depending on the s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu, Rasoolzadeh, Nika, Ondrusova, Beata, Hlivak, Peter, Zelinka, Jan, Tysler, Milan, Svehlikova, Jana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10288213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37362428
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1197778
_version_ 1785062033039818752
author Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu
Rasoolzadeh, Nika
Ondrusova, Beata
Hlivak, Peter
Zelinka, Jan
Tysler, Milan
Svehlikova, Jana
author_facet Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu
Rasoolzadeh, Nika
Ondrusova, Beata
Hlivak, Peter
Zelinka, Jan
Tysler, Milan
Svehlikova, Jana
author_sort Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Localization of premature ventricular contraction (PVC) origin to guide the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure is one of the prominent clinical goals of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging. However, the results reported in the literature vary significantly depending on the source model and the level of complexity in the forward model. This study aims to compare the paced and spontaneous PVC localization performances of dipole-based and potential-based source models and corresponding inverse methods using the same clinical data and to evaluate the effects of torso inhomogeneities on these performances. Methods: The publicly available EP solution data from the EDGAR data repository (BSPs from a maximum of 240 electrodes) with known pacing locations and the Bratislava data (BSPs in 128 leads) with spontaneous PVCs from patients who underwent successful RFA procedures were used. Homogeneous and inhomogeneous torso models and corresponding forward problem solutions were used to relate sources on the closed epicardial and epicardial–endocardial surfaces. The localization error (LE) between the true and estimated pacing site/PVC origin was evaluated. Results: For paced data, the median LE values were 25.2 and 13.9 mm for the dipole-based and potential-based models, respectively. These median LE values were higher for the spontaneous PVC data: 30.2–33.0 mm for the dipole-based model and 28.9–39.2 mm for the potential-based model. The assumption of inhomogeneities in the torso model did not change the dipole-based solutions much, but using an inhomogeneous model improved the potential-based solutions on the epicardial–endocardial ventricular surface. Conclusion: For the specific task of localization of pacing site/PVC origin, the dipole-based source model is more stable and robust than the potential-based source model. The torso inhomogeneities affect the performances of PVC origin localization in each source model differently. Hence, care must be taken in generating patient-specific geometric and forward models depending on the source model representation used in electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10288213
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102882132023-06-24 Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu Rasoolzadeh, Nika Ondrusova, Beata Hlivak, Peter Zelinka, Jan Tysler, Milan Svehlikova, Jana Front Physiol Physiology Introduction: Localization of premature ventricular contraction (PVC) origin to guide the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure is one of the prominent clinical goals of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging. However, the results reported in the literature vary significantly depending on the source model and the level of complexity in the forward model. This study aims to compare the paced and spontaneous PVC localization performances of dipole-based and potential-based source models and corresponding inverse methods using the same clinical data and to evaluate the effects of torso inhomogeneities on these performances. Methods: The publicly available EP solution data from the EDGAR data repository (BSPs from a maximum of 240 electrodes) with known pacing locations and the Bratislava data (BSPs in 128 leads) with spontaneous PVCs from patients who underwent successful RFA procedures were used. Homogeneous and inhomogeneous torso models and corresponding forward problem solutions were used to relate sources on the closed epicardial and epicardial–endocardial surfaces. The localization error (LE) between the true and estimated pacing site/PVC origin was evaluated. Results: For paced data, the median LE values were 25.2 and 13.9 mm for the dipole-based and potential-based models, respectively. These median LE values were higher for the spontaneous PVC data: 30.2–33.0 mm for the dipole-based model and 28.9–39.2 mm for the potential-based model. The assumption of inhomogeneities in the torso model did not change the dipole-based solutions much, but using an inhomogeneous model improved the potential-based solutions on the epicardial–endocardial ventricular surface. Conclusion: For the specific task of localization of pacing site/PVC origin, the dipole-based source model is more stable and robust than the potential-based source model. The torso inhomogeneities affect the performances of PVC origin localization in each source model differently. Hence, care must be taken in generating patient-specific geometric and forward models depending on the source model representation used in electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI). Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10288213/ /pubmed/37362428 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1197778 Text en Copyright © 2023 Dogrusoz, Rasoolzadeh, Ondrusova, Hlivak, Zelinka, Tysler and Svehlikova. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
Dogrusoz, Yesim Serinagaoglu
Rasoolzadeh, Nika
Ondrusova, Beata
Hlivak, Peter
Zelinka, Jan
Tysler, Milan
Svehlikova, Jana
Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title_full Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title_fullStr Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title_short Comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ECGI methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
title_sort comparison of dipole-based and potential-based ecgi methods for premature ventricular contraction beat localization with clinical data
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10288213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37362428
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1197778
work_keys_str_mv AT dogrusozyesimserinagaoglu comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT rasoolzadehnika comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT ondrusovabeata comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT hlivakpeter comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT zelinkajan comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT tyslermilan comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata
AT svehlikovajana comparisonofdipolebasedandpotentialbasedecgimethodsforprematureventricularcontractionbeatlocalizationwithclinicaldata