Cargando…
The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping
Focal impulse and rotor mapping (FIRM) involves intracardiac detection and catheter ablation of re-entrant drivers (RDs), some of which may contribute to arrhythmia perpetuation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF). Patient-specific computational models derived from late gadolinium-enhanced magn...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30210356 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01151 |
_version_ | 1783352827640283136 |
---|---|
author | Boyle, Patrick M. Hakim, Joe B. Zahid, Sohail Franceschi, William H. Murphy, Michael J. Prakosa, Adityo Aronis, Konstantinos N. Zghaib, Tarek Balouch, Muhammed Ipek, Esra G. Chrispin, Jonathan Berger, Ronald D. Ashikaga, Hiroshi Marine, Joseph E. Calkins, Hugh Nazarian, Saman Spragg, David D. Trayanova, Natalia A. |
author_facet | Boyle, Patrick M. Hakim, Joe B. Zahid, Sohail Franceschi, William H. Murphy, Michael J. Prakosa, Adityo Aronis, Konstantinos N. Zghaib, Tarek Balouch, Muhammed Ipek, Esra G. Chrispin, Jonathan Berger, Ronald D. Ashikaga, Hiroshi Marine, Joseph E. Calkins, Hugh Nazarian, Saman Spragg, David D. Trayanova, Natalia A. |
author_sort | Boyle, Patrick M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Focal impulse and rotor mapping (FIRM) involves intracardiac detection and catheter ablation of re-entrant drivers (RDs), some of which may contribute to arrhythmia perpetuation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF). Patient-specific computational models derived from late gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-MRI) has the potential to non-invasively identify all areas of the fibrotic substrate where RDs could potentially be sustained, including locations where RDs may not manifest during mapped AF episodes. The objective of this study was to carry out multi-modal assessment of the arrhythmogenic propensity of the fibrotic substrate in PsAF patients by comparing locations of RD-harboring regions found in simulations and detected by FIRM (RD(sim) and RD(FIRM)) and analyze implications for ablation strategies predicated on targeting RDs. For 11 PsAF patients who underwent pre-procedure LGE-MRI and FIRM-guided ablation, we retrospectively simulated AF in individualized atrial models, with geometry and fibrosis distribution reconstructed from pre-ablation LGE-MRI scans, and identified RD(sim) sites. Regions harboring RD(sim) and RD(FIRM) were compared. RD(sim) were found in 38 atrial regions (median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] = 4 [3; 4] per model). RD(FIRM) were identified and subsequently ablated in 24 atrial regions (2 [1; 3] per patient), which was significantly fewer than the number of RD(sim)-harboring regions in corresponding models (p < 0.05). Computational modeling predicted RD(sim) in 20 of 24 (83%) atrial regions identified as RD(FIRM)-harboring during clinical mapping. In a large number of cases, we uncovered RD(sim)-harboring regions in which RD(FIRM) were never observed (18/22 regions that differed between the two modalities; 82%); we termed such cases “latent” RD(sim) sites. During follow-up (230 [180; 326] days), AF recurrence occurred in 7/11 (64%) individuals. Interestingly, latent RD(sim) sites were observed in all seven computational models corresponding to patients who experienced recurrent AF (2 [2; 2] per patient); in contrast, latent RD(sim) sites were only discovered in two of four patients who were free from AF during follow-up (0.5 [0; 1.5] per patient; p < 0.05 vs. patients with AF recurrence). We conclude that substrate-based ablation based on computational modeling could improve outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6123380 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61233802018-09-12 The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping Boyle, Patrick M. Hakim, Joe B. Zahid, Sohail Franceschi, William H. Murphy, Michael J. Prakosa, Adityo Aronis, Konstantinos N. Zghaib, Tarek Balouch, Muhammed Ipek, Esra G. Chrispin, Jonathan Berger, Ronald D. Ashikaga, Hiroshi Marine, Joseph E. Calkins, Hugh Nazarian, Saman Spragg, David D. Trayanova, Natalia A. Front Physiol Physiology Focal impulse and rotor mapping (FIRM) involves intracardiac detection and catheter ablation of re-entrant drivers (RDs), some of which may contribute to arrhythmia perpetuation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF). Patient-specific computational models derived from late gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-MRI) has the potential to non-invasively identify all areas of the fibrotic substrate where RDs could potentially be sustained, including locations where RDs may not manifest during mapped AF episodes. The objective of this study was to carry out multi-modal assessment of the arrhythmogenic propensity of the fibrotic substrate in PsAF patients by comparing locations of RD-harboring regions found in simulations and detected by FIRM (RD(sim) and RD(FIRM)) and analyze implications for ablation strategies predicated on targeting RDs. For 11 PsAF patients who underwent pre-procedure LGE-MRI and FIRM-guided ablation, we retrospectively simulated AF in individualized atrial models, with geometry and fibrosis distribution reconstructed from pre-ablation LGE-MRI scans, and identified RD(sim) sites. Regions harboring RD(sim) and RD(FIRM) were compared. RD(sim) were found in 38 atrial regions (median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] = 4 [3; 4] per model). RD(FIRM) were identified and subsequently ablated in 24 atrial regions (2 [1; 3] per patient), which was significantly fewer than the number of RD(sim)-harboring regions in corresponding models (p < 0.05). Computational modeling predicted RD(sim) in 20 of 24 (83%) atrial regions identified as RD(FIRM)-harboring during clinical mapping. In a large number of cases, we uncovered RD(sim)-harboring regions in which RD(FIRM) were never observed (18/22 regions that differed between the two modalities; 82%); we termed such cases “latent” RD(sim) sites. During follow-up (230 [180; 326] days), AF recurrence occurred in 7/11 (64%) individuals. Interestingly, latent RD(sim) sites were observed in all seven computational models corresponding to patients who experienced recurrent AF (2 [2; 2] per patient); in contrast, latent RD(sim) sites were only discovered in two of four patients who were free from AF during follow-up (0.5 [0; 1.5] per patient; p < 0.05 vs. patients with AF recurrence). We conclude that substrate-based ablation based on computational modeling could improve outcomes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6123380/ /pubmed/30210356 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01151 Text en Copyright © 2018 Boyle, Hakim, Zahid, Franceschi, Murphy, Prakosa, Aronis, Zghaib, Balouch, Ipek, Chrispin, Berger, Ashikaga, Marine, Calkins, Nazarian, Spragg and Trayanova. http://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 Boyle, Patrick M. Hakim, Joe B. Zahid, Sohail Franceschi, William H. Murphy, Michael J. Prakosa, Adityo Aronis, Konstantinos N. Zghaib, Tarek Balouch, Muhammed Ipek, Esra G. Chrispin, Jonathan Berger, Ronald D. Ashikaga, Hiroshi Marine, Joseph E. Calkins, Hugh Nazarian, Saman Spragg, David D. Trayanova, Natalia A. The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title | The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title_full | The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title_fullStr | The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title_full_unstemmed | The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title_short | The Fibrotic Substrate in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Comparison Between Predictions From Computational Modeling and Measurements From Focal Impulse and Rotor Mapping |
title_sort | fibrotic substrate in persistent atrial fibrillation patients: comparison between predictions from computational modeling and measurements from focal impulse and rotor mapping |
topic | Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30210356 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01151 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boylepatrickm thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT hakimjoeb thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT zahidsohail thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT franceschiwilliamh thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT murphymichaelj thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT prakosaadityo thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT aroniskonstantinosn thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT zghaibtarek thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT balouchmuhammed thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT ipekesrag thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT chrispinjonathan thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT bergerronaldd thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT ashikagahiroshi thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT marinejosephe thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT calkinshugh thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT nazariansaman thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT spraggdavidd thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT trayanovanataliaa thefibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT boylepatrickm fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT hakimjoeb fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT zahidsohail fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT franceschiwilliamh fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT murphymichaelj fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT prakosaadityo fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT aroniskonstantinosn fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT zghaibtarek fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT balouchmuhammed fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT ipekesrag fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT chrispinjonathan fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT bergerronaldd fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT ashikagahiroshi fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT marinejosephe fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT calkinshugh fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT nazariansaman fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT spraggdavidd fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping AT trayanovanataliaa fibroticsubstrateinpersistentatrialfibrillationpatientscomparisonbetweenpredictionsfromcomputationalmodelingandmeasurementsfromfocalimpulseandrotormapping |