Evaluation of the use of unipolar voltage amplitudes for detection of myocardial scar assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure patients

PLoS One. 2017 Jul 5;12(7):e0180637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180637. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

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.

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Cicatrix / diagnostic imaging*
  • Cicatrix / physiopathology
  • Electrocardiography
  • Female
  • Heart / diagnostic imaging*
  • Heart / physiopathology
  • Heart Failure / diagnostic imaging*
  • Humans
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged

Grants and funding

This work was supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation under project 32003B_165802, from the Swiss Heart Foundation, and by a restricted grant of Biologic Delivery Systems, Division of Biosense Webster a Johnson & Johnson Company. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by Fondazione Cardiocentro Ticino, the Theo Rossi di Montelera Foundation, the Mantegazza Foundation, and FIDINAM to the Center of Computational Medicine in Cardiology. UCN received a Kootstra Talent Fellowship research grant from Maastricht University and was additionally funded by a research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation (grant #2015T61). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.