Skip Navigation

Europace 2007 9(Supplement 6):vi89-vi95; doi:10.1093/europace/eum212
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Narayan, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Franz, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Narayan, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Franz, M. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology 2007

Quantifying fractionation and rate in human atrial fibrillation using monophasic action potentials: implications for substrate mapping

Sanjiv M. Narayan1 and Michael R. Franz2,*

1 University of California and Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, San Diego, CA, USA; 2 Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

Aims: To use monophasic action potentials (MAPs) to better assess the rate and the presence of fractionated electrograms during the mapping of atrial fibrillation (AF). Substrate mapping is increasingly central to AF ablation. However, traditional bipolar signals poorly represent waveform shape, making it unclear whether fractionation reflects local waveform variations, true electrogram fragmentation, or noise, and raising issues on whether their spectral dominant frequencies (DFs) accurately estimate AF rate.

Methods and results: In 28 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF (left atrial diameters 44 ± 8 mm), we studied 49 epochs of right atrial MAPs during AF. We compared fractionation, spectral and time-domain AF rate estimates using MAPs and bipolar electrograms obtained by filtering the MAPs. Fractionation was overestimated in bipolar rather than MAP electrograms (P = 0.005) and often reflected artefacts on the MAPs. Conversely, local waveform variability in the MAPs, including alternans or fractionation, was often uniform in the bipolar electrograms. The measured AF cycle length (CL) was accurately represented by the DF of the MAPs (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) but, due to double counting, not by the DF of bipolar signals (r = 0.29, P = 0.07). Spectral CL estimates were therefore accurate (≤20 ms from measured CL) for 77% of MAPs but for 45% of bipolar signals only. A novel autocorrelation method better estimated CL in MAPs (r = 0.92; P < 0.001) and bipoles (r = 0.82; P < 0.001), with 89 and 77% accuracy, respectively (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Atrial fibrillation organization and rate are better represented by MAPs, which portray fibrillatory waveform shape, than by bipolar recordings. This approach may more reliably portray electrogram variability, fragmentation, and rate for the mapping of AF substrates.

Key Words: Atrial fibrillation, Substrate mapping, Ablation, Monophasic action potentials, Fourier analysis, Autocorrelation


* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 202 745 8389; fax: +1 202 745 8472. E-mail address: michael.r.franz{at}verizon.net


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.