Purpose Recent investigations failed to reproduce the positive rotor-guided ablation outcomes shown by initial studies for treating persistent atrial fibrillation (persAF). Phase singularity (PS) is an important feature for AF driver detection, but algorithms for automated PS identification differ. We aim to investigate the performance of four different techniques for automated PS detection. Methods 2048-channel virtual electrogram (VEGM) and electrocardiogram signals were collected for 30 s from 10 patients undergoing persAF ablation. QRST-subtraction was performed and VEGMs were processed using sinusoidal wavelet reconstruction. The phase was obtained using Hilbert transform. PSs were detected using four algorithms: (1) 2D image processing based and neighbor-indexing algorithm; (2) 3D neighbor-indexing algorithm; (3) 2D kernel convolutional algorithm estimating topological charge; (4) topological charge estimation on 3D mesh. PS annotations were compared using the structural similarity index (SSIM) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (CORR). Optimized parameters to improve detection accuracy were found for all four algorithms using F β score and 10-fold cross-validation compared with manual annotation. Local clustering with density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) was proposed to improve algorithms 3 and 4. Results The PS density maps created by each algorithm with default parameters were poorly correlated. Phase gradient threshold and search radius (or kernels) were shown to affect PS detections. The processing times for the algorithms were significantly different ( p < 0.0001). The F β scores for algorithms 1, 2, 3, 3 + DBSCAN, 4 and 4 + DBSCAN were 0.547, 0.645, 0.742, 0.828, 0.656, and 0.831. Algorithm 4 + DBSCAN achieved the best classification performance with acceptable processing time (2.0 ± 0.3 s). Conclusion AF driver identification is dependent on the PS detection algorithms and their parameters, which could explain some of the inconsistencies in rotor-guided ablation outcomes in different studies. For 3D triangulated meshes, algorithm 4 + DBSCAN with optimal parameters was the best solution for real-time, automated PS detection due to accuracy and speed. Similarly, algorithm 3 + DBSCAN with optimal parameters is preferred for uniform 2D meshes. Such algorithms – and parameters – should be preferred in future clinical studies for identifying AF drivers and minimizing methodological heterogeneities. This would facilitate comparisons in rotor-guided ablation outcomes in future works.

(Sensitivity = 0.733, Specificity = 0.8398).

Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) has recently gained attention as a viable diagnostic tool for reconstructing cardiac electrical activity in normal hearts as well as in cardiac arrhythmias. However, progress has been limited by the lack of both standards and unbiased comparisons of approaches and techniques across the community, as well as the consequent difficulty of effective collaboration across research groups.. To address these limitations, we created the Consortium for Electrocardiographic Imaging (CEI), with the objective of facilitating collaboration across the research community in ECGI and creating standards for comparisons and reproducibility.Here we introduce CEI and describe its two main efforts, the creation of EDGAR, a public data repository, and the organization of three collaborative workgroups that address key components and applications in ECGI. Both EDGAR and the workgroups will facilitate the sharing of ideas, data and methods across the ECGI community and thus address the current lack of reproducibility, broad collaboration, and unbiased comparisons.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is characterized by complex and irregular propagation patterns. Multipoint intracardiac mapping systems present a limited spatial resolution, which makes it difficult to identify AF drivers and ablation targets. These AF onset locations and drivers responsible for AF perpetuation are main targets for ablation procedures. Although noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) and inverse problem-based methods have been tested during AF conditions, they need an accurate mathematical modeling of atria and torso to get good results. In this work, we propose to model the location of AF drivers from body surface potentials (BPS) as a supervised classification problem. We used deep learning techniques to address the problem. We were able to correctly locate the 92% and 96% of drivers in the test and training sets, respectively (accuracy of 0.92 and 0.96), while the Cohen's Kappa was 0.89 for both sets. Therefore, proposed method can help to identify target regions for ablation using a noninvasive procedure as BSP mapping.

No abstract