Pranav Bhagirath

201 Feasibility and Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Whole-Heart Inverse Potential Mapping of Sinus Rhythm and Idiopathic Ventricular Foci in patients with a high body surface area, pulmonary edema or myocardial infarction. These circumstances could substantially influence the BSP’s due to altered conductivity and resistivity conditions. The comparison performed in this study indicated a significant difference between homogeneous and inhomogeneous VCM ( table 3 ). These results suggest that although it is possible to perform IPM using a homogeneous VCM, an inhomogeneous VCM provides more accurate results. Table 3. Localization difference between ectopic focus identified using homogeneous and inhomogeneous VCM compared to the ablation site marked on the EAM. Case Homogeneous (mm) Inhomogeneous (mm) p 1 11.1 9.3 2 9.1 9.1 3 6.4 6.4 4 14.4 12.1 5 focus not identified 7.6 6 14.9 11.7 7 7.8 3.6 8 8.3 6.4 Median and IQR 9.1 (IQR: 7.8-14.4) 8.35 (IQR: 6.4-11.1) p = 0.043 IQR indicates interquartile range. Limitations Several inherent technical limitations may have led to the observed differences between IPM identified ectopic focus and site of ablation defined on the EAM. Although clinically more practical, the limited number of electrodes used in this study and the electrode positioning on the patient thorax may have affected the accuracy of focus localization. In addition, movement of the ablation catheter may cause spatial displacement of the marked ablation site by approximately 10 mm (16) . Furthermore, small and subtle catheter movements can also result in significant shifts within the EAM while using a reference catheter. All these factors could have contributed to the differences in focus location between IPM and EAM.