Cargando…

Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation

Non-invasive analysis of atrial fibrillation (AF) using body surface mapping (BSM) has gained significant interest, with attempts at interpreting atrial spectro-temporal parameters from body surface signals. As these body surface signals could be affected by properties of the torso volume conductor,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vanheusden, Frederique J., Chu, Gavin S., Li, Xin, Salinet, João, Almeida, Tiago P., Dastagir, Nawshin, Stafford, Peter J., Ng, G. André, Schlindwein, Fernando S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30503301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.11.017
_version_ 1783387671353098240
author Vanheusden, Frederique J.
Chu, Gavin S.
Li, Xin
Salinet, João
Almeida, Tiago P.
Dastagir, Nawshin
Stafford, Peter J.
Ng, G. André
Schlindwein, Fernando S.
author_facet Vanheusden, Frederique J.
Chu, Gavin S.
Li, Xin
Salinet, João
Almeida, Tiago P.
Dastagir, Nawshin
Stafford, Peter J.
Ng, G. André
Schlindwein, Fernando S.
author_sort Vanheusden, Frederique J.
collection PubMed
description Non-invasive analysis of atrial fibrillation (AF) using body surface mapping (BSM) has gained significant interest, with attempts at interpreting atrial spectro-temporal parameters from body surface signals. As these body surface signals could be affected by properties of the torso volume conductor, this interpretation is not always straightforward. This paper highlights the volume conductor effects and influences of the algorithm parameters for identifying the dominant frequency (DF) from cardiac signals collected simultaneously on the torso and atrial surface. Bi-atrial virtual electrograms (VEGMs) and BSMs were recorded simultaneously for 5 min from 10 patients undergoing ablation for persistent AF. Frequency analysis was performed on 4 s segments. DF was defined as the frequency with highest power between 4 and 10 Hz with and without applying organization index (OI) thresholds. The volume conductor effect was assessed by analyzing the highest DF (HDF) difference of each VEGM HDF against its BSM counterpart. Significant differences in HDF values between intra-cardiac and torso signals could be observed, independent of OI threshold. This difference increases with increasing endocardial HDF (BSM-VEGM median difference from −0.13 Hz for VEGM HDF at 6.25 ± 0.25 Hz to −4.24 Hz at 9.75 ± 0.25 Hz), thereby confirming the theory of the volume conductor effect in real-life situations. Applying an OI threshold strongly affected the BSM HDF area size and location and atrial HDF area location. These results suggest that volume conductor and measurement algorithm effects must be considered for appropriate clinical interpretation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6334202
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63342022019-01-22 Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation Vanheusden, Frederique J. Chu, Gavin S. Li, Xin Salinet, João Almeida, Tiago P. Dastagir, Nawshin Stafford, Peter J. Ng, G. André Schlindwein, Fernando S. Comput Biol Med Article Non-invasive analysis of atrial fibrillation (AF) using body surface mapping (BSM) has gained significant interest, with attempts at interpreting atrial spectro-temporal parameters from body surface signals. As these body surface signals could be affected by properties of the torso volume conductor, this interpretation is not always straightforward. This paper highlights the volume conductor effects and influences of the algorithm parameters for identifying the dominant frequency (DF) from cardiac signals collected simultaneously on the torso and atrial surface. Bi-atrial virtual electrograms (VEGMs) and BSMs were recorded simultaneously for 5 min from 10 patients undergoing ablation for persistent AF. Frequency analysis was performed on 4 s segments. DF was defined as the frequency with highest power between 4 and 10 Hz with and without applying organization index (OI) thresholds. The volume conductor effect was assessed by analyzing the highest DF (HDF) difference of each VEGM HDF against its BSM counterpart. Significant differences in HDF values between intra-cardiac and torso signals could be observed, independent of OI threshold. This difference increases with increasing endocardial HDF (BSM-VEGM median difference from −0.13 Hz for VEGM HDF at 6.25 ± 0.25 Hz to −4.24 Hz at 9.75 ± 0.25 Hz), thereby confirming the theory of the volume conductor effect in real-life situations. Applying an OI threshold strongly affected the BSM HDF area size and location and atrial HDF area location. These results suggest that volume conductor and measurement algorithm effects must be considered for appropriate clinical interpretation. Elsevier 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6334202/ /pubmed/30503301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.11.017 Text en Crown Copyright © Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Vanheusden, Frederique J.
Chu, Gavin S.
Li, Xin
Salinet, João
Almeida, Tiago P.
Dastagir, Nawshin
Stafford, Peter J.
Ng, G. André
Schlindwein, Fernando S.
Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title_full Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title_fullStr Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title_short Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
title_sort systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30503301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.11.017
work_keys_str_mv AT vanheusdenfrederiquej systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT chugavins systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT lixin systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT salinetjoao systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT almeidatiagop systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT dastagirnawshin systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT staffordpeterj systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT nggandre systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation
AT schlindweinfernandos systematicdifferencesofnoninvasivedominantfrequencyestimationcomparedtoinvasivedominantfrequencyestimationinatrialfibrillation