Using unipolar atrial electrogram morphology as guidance for ablative therapy is regaining interest. Although standardly used in clinical practice during ablative therapy, the impact of filter settings on morphology of unipolar AF potentials is unknown. Thirty different filters were applied to 2,557,045 high-resolution epicardial AF potentials recorded from ten patients. Deflections with slope ≤ - 0.05 mV/ms and amplitude ≥ 0.3 mV were marked. High-pass filtering decreased the number of detected potentials, deflection amplitude, and percentage of fractionated potentials (≥ 2 deflections) as well as fractionation delay time (FDT) and increased percentage of single potentials. Low-pass filtering decreased the number of potentials, percentage of fractionated potentials, whereas deflection amplitude, percentage of single potentials, and FDT increased. Notch filtering (50 Hz) decreased the number of potentials and deflection amplitude, whereas the percentage of complex fractionated potentials (≥ 3 deflections) increased. Filtering significantly impacted morphology of unipolar fibrillation potentials, becoming a potential source of error in identification of ablative targets. Graphical Abstract Impact of filtering on morphology of unipolar AF potentials. High-pass, low-pass and notch filters were applied to 2,557,045 high-resolution epicardial AF potentials recorded from ten patients. Filtering significantly impacted AF potential morphology, i.e., number of detected potentials, peak-to-peak amplitude, number of deflections, and fractionation delay time. CFP, complex fractionated potential (≥ 3 deflections); DP, double potential (two deflections); FDT, fractionation delay time; SP, single potential (one deflection).
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cardiac electrophysiology; Electrogram morphology; Filter settings; High-resolution epicardial mapping.