Cargando…

Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers

Cardiac disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries. Currently, non-invasive techniques that can identify patients at risk and provide accurate diagnosis and ablation guidance therapy are under development. One of these is electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI). In ECGI...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Borràs, Marta, Chamorro-Servent, Judit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7886787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33613311
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.620250
_version_ 1783651871193300992
author Borràs, Marta
Chamorro-Servent, Judit
author_facet Borràs, Marta
Chamorro-Servent, Judit
author_sort Borràs, Marta
collection PubMed
description Cardiac disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries. Currently, non-invasive techniques that can identify patients at risk and provide accurate diagnosis and ablation guidance therapy are under development. One of these is electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI). In ECGI, the first step is to formulate a forward problem that relates the unknown potential sources on the cardiac surface to the measured body surface potentials. Then, the unknown potential sources on the cardiac surface are reconstructed through the solution of an inverse problem. Unfortunately, ECGI still lacks accuracy due to the underlying inverse problem being ill-posed, and this consequently imposes limitations on the understanding and treatment of many cardiac diseases. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the solution of the inverse problem. In this work, we transfer and adapt four inverse problem methods to the ECGI setting: algebraic reconstruction technique (ART), random ART, ART Split Bregman (ART-SB) and range restricted generalized minimal residual (RRGMRES) method. We test all these methods with data from the Experimental Data and Geometric Analysis Repository (EDGAR) and compare their solution with the recorded epicardial potentials provided by EDGAR and a generalized minimal residual (GMRES) iterative method computed solution. Activation maps are also computed and compared. The results show that ART achieved the most stable solutions and, for some datasets, returned the best reconstruction. Differences between the solutions derived from ART and random ART are almost negligible, and the accuracy of their solutions is followed by RRGMRES, ART-SB and finally the GMRES (which returned the worst reconstructions). The RRGMRES method provided the best reconstruction for some datasets but appeared to be less stable than ART when comparing different datasets. In conclusion, we show that the proposed methods (ART, random ART, and RRGMRES) improve the GMRES solution, which has been suggested as inverse problem solution for ECGI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7886787
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78867872021-02-18 Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers Borràs, Marta Chamorro-Servent, Judit Front Physiol Physiology Cardiac disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries. Currently, non-invasive techniques that can identify patients at risk and provide accurate diagnosis and ablation guidance therapy are under development. One of these is electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI). In ECGI, the first step is to formulate a forward problem that relates the unknown potential sources on the cardiac surface to the measured body surface potentials. Then, the unknown potential sources on the cardiac surface are reconstructed through the solution of an inverse problem. Unfortunately, ECGI still lacks accuracy due to the underlying inverse problem being ill-posed, and this consequently imposes limitations on the understanding and treatment of many cardiac diseases. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the solution of the inverse problem. In this work, we transfer and adapt four inverse problem methods to the ECGI setting: algebraic reconstruction technique (ART), random ART, ART Split Bregman (ART-SB) and range restricted generalized minimal residual (RRGMRES) method. We test all these methods with data from the Experimental Data and Geometric Analysis Repository (EDGAR) and compare their solution with the recorded epicardial potentials provided by EDGAR and a generalized minimal residual (GMRES) iterative method computed solution. Activation maps are also computed and compared. The results show that ART achieved the most stable solutions and, for some datasets, returned the best reconstruction. Differences between the solutions derived from ART and random ART are almost negligible, and the accuracy of their solutions is followed by RRGMRES, ART-SB and finally the GMRES (which returned the worst reconstructions). The RRGMRES method provided the best reconstruction for some datasets but appeared to be less stable than ART when comparing different datasets. In conclusion, we show that the proposed methods (ART, random ART, and RRGMRES) improve the GMRES solution, which has been suggested as inverse problem solution for ECGI. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7886787/ /pubmed/33613311 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.620250 Text en Copyright © 2021 Borràs and Chamorro-Servent. 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
Borràs, Marta
Chamorro-Servent, Judit
Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title_full Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title_fullStr Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title_full_unstemmed Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title_short Electrocardiographic Imaging: A Comparison of Iterative Solvers
title_sort electrocardiographic imaging: a comparison of iterative solvers
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7886787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33613311
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.620250
work_keys_str_mv AT borrasmarta electrocardiographicimagingacomparisonofiterativesolvers
AT chamorroserventjudit electrocardiographicimagingacomparisonofiterativesolvers