Identification of Critical Slowing of Conduction Using Unipolar Atrial Voltage and Fractionation Mapping

Abstract

Background

Ablation strategies targeting fractionated or low-voltage potentials have been widely used in patients with persistent types of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent studies have questioned their role in effectively representing sites of conduction slowing, and thus arrhythmogenic substrates.

Objectives

The authors studied the relationship between local conduction velocity (CV) and the occurrence of fractionated and/or low-voltage potentials in order to identify areas with critically slowing of conduction.

Methods

Intraoperative epicardial mapping was performed during sinus rhythm. Unipolar potentials with an amplitude <1.0 mV were initially classified as low-voltage and potentials with ≥3 deflections as fractionation. A range of thresholds were also explored. Local CV was computed using discrete velocity vectors.

Results

A total of 319 patients were included. Fractionated, low-voltage potentials were rare, accounting for only 0.36% (Q1-Q3: 0.15%-0.78%) of all atrial sites. Local CV at sites with fractionated, low-voltage potentials (46.0 cm/s [Q1-Q3: 22.6-72.7 cm/s]) was lowest compared with sites with either low-voltage, nonfractionated potentials (64.5 cm/s [Q1-Q3: 34.8-99.4 cm/s]) or fractionated, high-voltage potentials (65.9 cm/s [Q1-Q3: 41.7-92.8 cm/s]; P < 0.001). Slow conduction areas (CV <50 cm/s) could be most accurately identified by using a low voltage threshold (<1 mV) and a minimum of 3 deflections (positive predictive value: 54.2%-70.7%), although the overall sensitivity remained low (0.1%-1.9%).

Conclusions

Sites with fractionated, low-voltage potentials have substantially slower local CV compared with sites with either low-voltage, nonfractionated potentials or fractionated, high-voltage potentials. However, the strong inverse relationship between the positive predictive value and sensitivity of a combined voltage and fractionation threshold for slowed conduction is likely to complicate the use of these signal-based ablation approaches in AF patients.