Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29947446›Full record

ArticleAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2018

Predictive value of unshielded magnetocardiographic mapping to differentiate atrial fibrillation patients from healthy subjects.

Gianluigi Guida, Anna Rita Sorbo, Riccardo Fenici, Donatella Brisinda

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Predictive value of unshielded magnetocardiographic mapping to differentiate atrial fibrillation patients from healthy subjects.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gianluigi GuidaBiomagnetism and Clinical Physiology International Center, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Anna Rita SorboBiomagnetism and Clinical Physiology International Center, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Riccardo FeniciBiomagnetism and Clinical Physiology International Center, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4664-2653
Donatella BrisindaBiomagnetism and Clinical Physiology International Center, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundP-wave duration, its dispersion and signal-averaged ECG, are currently used markers of vulnerability to atrial fibrillation (AF). However, since tangential atrial currents are better detectable at the body surface as magnetic than electric signals, we investigated the accuracy of magnetocardiographic mapping (MCG), recorded in unshielded clinical environments, as predictor of AF occurrence.

methodsMCG recordings, in sinus rhythm (SR), of 71 AF patients and 75 controls were retrospectively analyzed. Beside electric and magnetic P-wave and PR interval duration, two MCG P-wave subintervals, defined P-dep and P-rep, were measured, basing on the point of inversion of atrial magnetic field (MF). Eight parameters were calculated from inverse solution with "Effective Magnetic Dipole (EMD) model" and 5 from "MF Extrema" analysis. Discriminant analysis (DA) was used to assess MCG predictive accuracy to differentiate AF patients from controls.

resultsAll but one (P-rep) intervals were significantly longer in AF patients. At univariate analysis, three EMD parameters differed significantly: in AF patients, the dipole-angle-elevation angular speed was lower during P-dep (p < 0.05) and higher during P-rep (p < 0.001) intervals. The space-trajectory during P-rep and the angle-dynamics during P-dep were higher (p < 0.05), whereas ratio-dynamics P-dep was lower (p < 0.01), in AF. At DA, with a combination of MCG and clinical parameters, 81.5% accuracy in differentiating AF patients from controls was achieved. At Cox-regression, the angle-dynamics P-dep was an independent predictor of AF recurrences (p = 0.037).

conclusionsQuantitative analysis of atrial MF dynamics in SR and the solution of the inverse problem provide new sensitive markers of vulnerability to AF.

Indexed as

Signal Processing, Computer-AssistedAge FactorsAnalysis of VarianceAtrial FibrillationBody Surface Potential MappingCase-Control StudiesElectrocardiographyFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeart AtriaHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReference ValuesRetrospective Studiesatrial fibrillationdiscriminant analysisinverse solutionmagnetocardiographysurface cardiac mapping

Identifiers

PMID29947446
PMCPMC6931487
OpenAlexW2809831705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.