Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of performance of the algorithm for various simulation cases

From: Atrial fibrillation source area probability mapping using electrogram patterns of multipole catheters

Simulation typeCatheter typeSuccessful delineation (%)Normalized length of trajectory in delineated AF area (mean length)Difference in PWD and true direction
Rotor sourceLasso99.980.87 ± 0.09 (21.8 mm)23.76° ± 17.75°
Spiral99.990.80 ± 0.12 (20 mm)33.80° ± 17.85°
Focal sourceLasso100N/A25.17° ± 15.64°
Spiral100N/A34.00° ± 15.77°
Figure of eightLasso97.010.66 ± 0.03 (23.1 mm)23.93° ± 12.41°
Two layer modelLasso95.650.64 ± 0.26 (12.8 mm)25.50° ± 19.10°
Conduction blockLasso98.570.83 ± 0.11 (45.9 mm)24.54° ± 21.73°
Fibrillatory rotor clusterLasso96.020.71 ± 0.29 (20.7 mm)24.47° ± 20.30°
Rotor source (3D)Lasso98.100.73 ± 0.10 (10.9 mm)26.26° ± 19.43°
Focal source (3D)Lasso99.41N/A25.02° ± 12.04°
  1. The fourth column shows the normalized length of the trajectory of the meandering AF source present inside the highest probability area; for example, a value of 0.87 implies that 87% of the reentry trajectory was present inside the area and the 87% length value is 21.8 mm. Both normalized length and the actual length are averaged over all the algorithm runs. The last column shows the difference between the calculated principal wave direction (PWD) angle and the actual angle in degrees—for reference, the angle between a bipole of a Lasso is about 35° and a spiral has an outer bipole angle of about 56°