Cargando…

In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) typically includes pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and may include additional ablation lesions that target patient-specific anatomical, electrical, or structural features. Clinical centers employ different ablation strategies, which us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roney, Caroline H., Beach, Marianne L., Mehta, Arihant M., Sim, Iain, Corrado, Cesare, Bendikas, Rokas, Solis-Lemus, Jose A., Razeghi, Orod, Whitaker, John, O’Neill, Louisa, Plank, Gernot, Vigmond, Edward, Williams, Steven E., O’Neill, Mark D., Niederer, Steven A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33041850
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.572874
_version_ 1783588882593349632
author Roney, Caroline H.
Beach, Marianne L.
Mehta, Arihant M.
Sim, Iain
Corrado, Cesare
Bendikas, Rokas
Solis-Lemus, Jose A.
Razeghi, Orod
Whitaker, John
O’Neill, Louisa
Plank, Gernot
Vigmond, Edward
Williams, Steven E.
O’Neill, Mark D.
Niederer, Steven A.
author_facet Roney, Caroline H.
Beach, Marianne L.
Mehta, Arihant M.
Sim, Iain
Corrado, Cesare
Bendikas, Rokas
Solis-Lemus, Jose A.
Razeghi, Orod
Whitaker, John
O’Neill, Louisa
Plank, Gernot
Vigmond, Edward
Williams, Steven E.
O’Neill, Mark D.
Niederer, Steven A.
author_sort Roney, Caroline H.
collection PubMed
description Catheter ablation therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) typically includes pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and may include additional ablation lesions that target patient-specific anatomical, electrical, or structural features. Clinical centers employ different ablation strategies, which use imaging data together with electroanatomic mapping data, depending on data availability. The aim of this study was to compare ablation techniques across a virtual cohort of AF patients. We constructed 20 paroxysmal and 30 persistent AF patient-specific left atrial (LA) bilayer models incorporating fibrotic remodeling from late-gadolinium enhancement (LGE) MRI scans. AF was simulated and post-processed using phase mapping to determine electrical driver locations over 15 s. Six different ablation approaches were tested: (i) PVI alone, modeled as wide-area encirclement of the pulmonary veins; PVI together with: (ii) roof and inferior lines to model posterior wall box isolation; (iii) isolating the largest fibrotic area (identified by LGE-MRI); (iv) isolating all fibrotic areas; (v) isolating the largest driver hotspot region [identified as high simulated phase singularity (PS) density]; and (vi) isolating all driver hotspot regions. Ablation efficacy was assessed to predict optimal ablation therapies for individual patients. We subsequently trained a random forest classifier to predict ablation response using (a) imaging metrics alone, (b) imaging and electrical metrics, or (c) imaging, electrical, and ablation lesion metrics. The optimal ablation approach resulting in termination, or if not possible atrial tachycardia (AT), varied among the virtual patient cohort: (i) 20% PVI alone, (ii) 6% box ablation, (iii) 2% largest fibrosis area, (iv) 4% all fibrosis areas, (v) 2% largest driver hotspot, and (vi) 46% all driver hotspots. Around 20% of cases remained in AF for all ablation strategies. The addition of patient-specific and ablation pattern specific lesion metrics to the trained random forest classifier improved predictive capability from an accuracy of 0.73 to 0.83. The trained classifier results demonstrate that the surface areas of pre-ablation driver regions and of fibrotic tissue not isolated by the proposed ablation strategy are both important for predicting ablation outcome. Overall, our study demonstrates the need to select the optimal ablation strategy for each patient. It suggests that both patient-specific fibrosis properties and driver locations are important for planning ablation approaches, and the distribution of lesions is important for predicting an acute response.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7526475
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75264752020-10-09 In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation Roney, Caroline H. Beach, Marianne L. Mehta, Arihant M. Sim, Iain Corrado, Cesare Bendikas, Rokas Solis-Lemus, Jose A. Razeghi, Orod Whitaker, John O’Neill, Louisa Plank, Gernot Vigmond, Edward Williams, Steven E. O’Neill, Mark D. Niederer, Steven A. Front Physiol Physiology Catheter ablation therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) typically includes pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and may include additional ablation lesions that target patient-specific anatomical, electrical, or structural features. Clinical centers employ different ablation strategies, which use imaging data together with electroanatomic mapping data, depending on data availability. The aim of this study was to compare ablation techniques across a virtual cohort of AF patients. We constructed 20 paroxysmal and 30 persistent AF patient-specific left atrial (LA) bilayer models incorporating fibrotic remodeling from late-gadolinium enhancement (LGE) MRI scans. AF was simulated and post-processed using phase mapping to determine electrical driver locations over 15 s. Six different ablation approaches were tested: (i) PVI alone, modeled as wide-area encirclement of the pulmonary veins; PVI together with: (ii) roof and inferior lines to model posterior wall box isolation; (iii) isolating the largest fibrotic area (identified by LGE-MRI); (iv) isolating all fibrotic areas; (v) isolating the largest driver hotspot region [identified as high simulated phase singularity (PS) density]; and (vi) isolating all driver hotspot regions. Ablation efficacy was assessed to predict optimal ablation therapies for individual patients. We subsequently trained a random forest classifier to predict ablation response using (a) imaging metrics alone, (b) imaging and electrical metrics, or (c) imaging, electrical, and ablation lesion metrics. The optimal ablation approach resulting in termination, or if not possible atrial tachycardia (AT), varied among the virtual patient cohort: (i) 20% PVI alone, (ii) 6% box ablation, (iii) 2% largest fibrosis area, (iv) 4% all fibrosis areas, (v) 2% largest driver hotspot, and (vi) 46% all driver hotspots. Around 20% of cases remained in AF for all ablation strategies. The addition of patient-specific and ablation pattern specific lesion metrics to the trained random forest classifier improved predictive capability from an accuracy of 0.73 to 0.83. The trained classifier results demonstrate that the surface areas of pre-ablation driver regions and of fibrotic tissue not isolated by the proposed ablation strategy are both important for predicting ablation outcome. Overall, our study demonstrates the need to select the optimal ablation strategy for each patient. It suggests that both patient-specific fibrosis properties and driver locations are important for planning ablation approaches, and the distribution of lesions is important for predicting an acute response. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7526475/ /pubmed/33041850 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.572874 Text en Copyright © 2020 Roney, Beach, Mehta, Sim, Corrado, Bendikas, Solis-Lemus, Razeghi, Whitaker, O’Neill, Plank, Vigmond, Williams, O’Neill and Niederer. 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
Roney, Caroline H.
Beach, Marianne L.
Mehta, Arihant M.
Sim, Iain
Corrado, Cesare
Bendikas, Rokas
Solis-Lemus, Jose A.
Razeghi, Orod
Whitaker, John
O’Neill, Louisa
Plank, Gernot
Vigmond, Edward
Williams, Steven E.
O’Neill, Mark D.
Niederer, Steven A.
In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title_full In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title_fullStr In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title_short In silico Comparison of Left Atrial Ablation Techniques That Target the Anatomical, Structural, and Electrical Substrates of Atrial Fibrillation
title_sort in silico comparison of left atrial ablation techniques that target the anatomical, structural, and electrical substrates of atrial fibrillation
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33041850
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.572874
work_keys_str_mv AT roneycarolineh insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT beachmariannel insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT mehtaarihantm insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT simiain insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT corradocesare insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT bendikasrokas insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT solislemusjosea insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT razeghiorod insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT whitakerjohn insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT oneilllouisa insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT plankgernot insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT vigmondedward insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT williamsstevene insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT oneillmarkd insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation
AT niedererstevena insilicocomparisonofleftatrialablationtechniquesthattargettheanatomicalstructuralandelectricalsubstratesofatrialfibrillation