Search

Aims he aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the activation sequence on voltage amplitudes by evaluating regional voltage differences during a left bundle branch block (LBBB) activation sequence vs. a normal synchronous activation sequence and by evaluating pacing-induced voltage differences. Methods and results wenty-one patients and three computer models without scar were studied. Regional voltage amplitudes were evaluated in nine LBBB patients who underwent endocardial electro-anatomic mapping (EAM). Pacing-induced voltage differences were evaluated in 12 patients who underwent epicardial EAM during intrinsic rhythm and right ventricular (RV) pacing. Three computer models customized for LBBB patients were created. Changes in voltage amplitudes after an LBBB (intrinsic), a normal synchronous, an RV pacing, and a left ventricular pacing activation sequence were assessed in the computer models. Unipolar voltage amplitudes in patients were approximately 4.5 mV (4.4-4.7 mV, ∼33%) lower in the septum when compared with other segments. A normal synchronous activation sequence in the computer models normalized voltage amplitudes in the septum. Pacing-induced differences were larger in electrograms with higher voltage amplitudes during intrinsic rhythm and furthermore larger and more variable at the epicardium [mean absolute difference: 3.6-6.2 mV, 40-53% of intrinsic value; interquartile range (IQR) differences: 53-63% of intrinsic value] compared to the endocardium (mean absolute difference: 3.3-3.8 mV, 28-30% of intrinsic value; IQR differences: 37-40% of intrinsic value). Conclusion In patients and computer models without scar, lower septal unipolar voltage amplitudes are exclusively associated with an LBBB activation sequence. Pacing substantially affects voltage amplitudes, particularly at the epicardium.

BACKGROUND: Validation of voltage-based scar delineation has been limited to small populations using mainly endocardial measurements. The aim of this study is to compare unipolar voltage amplitudes (UnipV) with scar on delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (DE-CMR). METHODS: Heart failure patients who underwent DE-CMR and electro-anatomic mapping were included. Thirty-three endocardial mapped patients and 27 epicardial mapped patients were investigated. UnipV were computed peak-to-peak. Electrograms were matched with scar extent of the corresponding DE-CMR segment using a 16-segment/slice model. Non-scar was defined as 0% scar, while scar was defined as 1-100% scar extent. RESULTS: UnipVs were moderately lower in scar than in non-scar (endocardial 7.1 [4.6-10.6] vs. 10.3 [7.4-14.2] mV; epicardial 6.7 [3.6-10.5] vs. 7.8 [4.2-12.3] mV; both p<0.001). The correlation between UnipV and scar extent was moderate for endocardial (R = -0.33, p<0.001), and poor for epicardial measurements (R = -0.07, p<0.001). Endocardial UnipV predicted segments with >25%, >50% and >75% scar extent with AUCs of 0.72, 0.73 and 0.76, respectively, while epicardial UnipV were poor scar predictors, independent of scar burden (AUC = 0.47-0.56). UnipV in non-scar varied widely between patients (p<0.001) and were lower in scar compared to non-scar in only 9/22 (41%) endocardial mapped patients and 4/19 (21%) epicardial mapped patients with scar. CONCLUSION: UnipV are slightly lower in scar compared to non-scar. However, significant UnipV differences between and within patients and large overlap between non-scar and scar limits the reliability of accurate scar assessment, especially in epicardial measurements and in segments with less than 75% scar extent.