Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42372972›Full record

ReviewIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal

Impact of recording technologies on cardiac electrogram morphology: implications for mapping and interpretation.

Mathijs S van Schie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Mathijs S van SchieDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vanschie@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Arrhythmia substrateCardiac mappingElectro-anatomical mappingElectrogramsElectrophysiologySignal processing

Identifiers

PMID42372972
PMCPMC13541590

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.