ReviewIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Impact of recording technologies on cardiac electrogram morphology: implications for mapping and interpretation.
Review in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac electrograms form the foundation of contemporary clinical electrophysiology and are essential for activation mapping, substrate characterization and catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Electrogram morphology, however, is not solely determined by myocardial electrophysiology, but also by multiple technological factors related to signal acquisition and processing. Electrode size, interelectrode spacing, electrode orientation, tissue coupling, filtering settings and annotation algorithms all influence electrogram morphology, voltage and activation timing. Consequently, identical myocardial activation patterns may generate markedly different electrograms depending on the recording configuration used. Recent advances in high-density mapping technologies, multi-electrode electrogram reconstruction and advanced signal-processing techniques have further expanded the possibilities and complexity of electrogram interpretation. This review discusses the biophysical principles underlying cardiac electrogram formation and examines the technological determinants that influence electrogram characteristics. In addition, the properties, advantages and limitations of different electrogram types, including unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, omnipolar and Laplacian electrograms, are reviewed together with their implications for voltage and activation mapping. A comprehensive understanding of both the physiological basis and technological limitations of electrogram acquisition remains essential for accurate electrogram interpretation and responsible advancement of cardiac arrhythmia mapping and ablation strategies.
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.