Computational Re-Entry Vulnerability Index Mapping to Guide Ablation in Patients With Postmyocardial Infarction Ventricular Tachycardia
Pouya Jelvehgaran (Universiteit van Amsterdam, TU Delft - Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology)
Ryan O'Hara (Johns Hopkins University)
Adityo Prakosa (Johns Hopkins University)
Jonathan Chrispin (Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions,)
Gerard J.J. Boink (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
Natalia Trayanova (Johns Hopkins University)
Ruben Coronel (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Fondation Bordeaux Université)
Thom Oostendorp (Radboud University Medical Center)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Background: Ventricular tachycardias (VTs) in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are often treated with catheter ablation. However, the VT induction during this procedure does not always identify all of the relevant activation pathways or may not be possible or tolerated. The re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) quantifies regional activation-repolarization differences and can detect multiple regions susceptible to re-entry without the need to induce the arrhythmia. Objectives: This study aimed to further develop and validate the RVI mapping in patient-specific computational models of post-MI VTs. Methods: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging data from 4 patients with post-MI VTs were used to induce VTs in a computational electrophysiological model by pacing. The RVI map of a premature beat in each patient model was used to guide virtual ablations. We compared our results with those of clinical ablation in the same patients. Results: Single-site virtual RVI-guided ablation prevented VT induction in 3 of 9 cases. Multisite virtual ablations guided by RVI mapping successfully prevented re-entry in all cases (9 of 9). Overall, virtual ablation required 15-fold fewer ablation sites (235.5 ± 97.4 vs 17.0 ± 6.8) and 2-fold less ablation volume (5.34 ± 1.79 mL vs 2.11 ± 0.65 mL) than the clinical ablation. Conclusions: RVI mapping allows localization of multiple regions susceptible to re-entry and may help guide VT ablation. RVI mapping does not require the induction of arrhythmia and may result in less ablated myocardial volumes with fewer ablation sites.
help_outline