ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2022
Modeling the His-Purkinje Effect in Non-invasive Estimation of Endocardial and Epicardial Ventricular Activation.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstructing ventricular activation sequences from epicardial data: Insights from Geodesic Back-Propagation optimization in porcine models.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Localization of the ventricular pacing site from BSPM and standard 12-lead ECG: a comparison study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Assessment of electrical dyssynchrony in cardiac resynchronization therapy: 12-lead electrocardiogram vs. 96-lead body surface map.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Basis and applicability of noninvasive inverse electrocardiography: a comparison between cardiac source models.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Non-invasive estimation of QLV from the standard 12-lead ECG in patients with left bundle branch block.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Inverse electrocardiography (iECG) estimates epi- and endocardial electrical activity from body surface potentials maps (BSPM). In individuals at risk for cardiomyopathy, non-invasive estimation of normal ventricular activation may provide valuable information to aid risk stratification to prevent sudden cardiac death. However, multiple simultaneous activation wavefronts initiated by the His-Purkinje system, severely complicate iECG. To improve the estimation of normal ventricular activation, the iECG method should accurately mimic the effect of the His-Purkinje system, which is not taken into account in the previously published multi-focal iECG. Therefore, we introduce the novel multi-wave iECG method and report on its performance. Multi-wave iECG and multi-focal iECG were tested in four patients undergoing invasive electro-anatomical mapping during normal ventricular activation. In each subject, 67-electrode BSPM were recorded and used as input for both iECG methods. The iECG and invasive local activation timing (LAT) maps were compared. Median epicardial inter-map correlation coefficient (CC) between invasive LAT maps and estimated multi-wave iECG versus multi-focal iECG was 0.61 versus 0.31. Endocardial inter-map CC was 0.54 respectively 0.22. Modeling the His-Purkinje system resulted in a physiologically realistic and robust non-invasive estimation of normal ventricular activation, which might enable the early detection of cardiac disease during normal sinus rhythm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.