No abstract

BackgroundCharacterization of myocardial health by bipolar electrograms are critical for ventricular tachycardia therapy. Dependence of bipolar electrograms on electrode orientation may reduce reliability of voltage assessment along the plane of arrhythmic myocardial substrate. Hence, we sought to evaluate voltage assessment from orientation‐independent omnipolar electrograms.Methods and ResultsWe mapped the ventricular epicardium of 5 isolated hearts from each species—healthy rabbits, healthy pigs, and diseased humans—under paced conditions. We derived bipolar electrograms and voltage peak‐to‐peak (Vpps) along 2 bipolar electrode orientations (horizontal and vertical). We derived omnipolar electrograms and Vpps using omnipolar electrogram methodology. Voltage maps were created for both bipoles and omnipole. Electrode orientation affects the bipolar voltage map with an average absolute difference between horizontal and vertical of 0.25±0.18 mV in humans. Vpps provide larger absolute values than horizontal and vertical bipolar Vpps by 1.6 and 1.4 mV, respectively, in humans. Bipolar electrograms with the largest Vpps from either along horizontal or vertical orientation are highly correlated with omnipolar electrograms and with Vpps values (0.97±0.08 and 0.94±0.08, respectively). Vpps values are more consistent than bipoles, in both beat‐by‐beat (CoV, 0.28±0.19 versus 0.08±0.13 in human hearts) and rhythm changes (0.55±0.21 versus 0.40±0.20 in porcine hearts).ConclusionsOmnipoles provide physiologically relevant and consistent voltages that are along the maximal bipolar direction on the plane of the myocardium.

No abstract

Background Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a cornerstone in the pre- transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CTA and coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for CAD evaluation compared to invasive coronary angiography in a cohort of TAVI patients. Methods In consecutive TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization and device implants, CAD was assessment by quantitative analysis in CTA. (a) Patients with non-evaluable segments were classified as obstructive CAD. (b) In patients with non-evaluable segments a CACS cut-off of 100 was applied for obstructive CAD. The reference standard was quantitative invasive coronary angiography (QCA, i.e. ≥ 50% stenosis). Results 100 consecutive patients were retrospectively included, age was 82.3 ± 6.5 years and 30% of patients had CAD. In 16% of the patients, adequate visualization of the entire coronary tree (all 16 segments) was possible with CTA, while 84% had at least one segment which was not evaluable for CAD analysis due to impaired image quality. On a per-patient analysis, where patients with low image quality were classified as CAD, CTA showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 88.4–100.0), specificity of 11.4% (95% CI 5.1–21.3), PPV of 32.6% (95% CI 30.8–34.5), NPV of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 38% (95% CI 28.5–48.3) for obstructive CAD. When applying a combined approach of CTA (in patients with good image quality) and CACS (in patients with low image quality), the sensitivity and NPV remained at 100% and obstructive CAD could be ruled out in 20% of the TAVI patients, versus 8% using CTA alone. Conclusion In routinely acquired pre-TAVI CTA, the image quality was insufficient in a high proportion of patients for the assessment of the entire coronary artery tree. However, when adding CACS in patients with low image quality to quantitative CTA assessment in patients with good image quality, obstructive CAD could be ruled-out in 1/5 of the patients and may therefore constitute a strategy to streamline pre-procedural workup, and reduce risk, radiation and costs in selected TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization or device implants.