Back

Physiological accuracy in simulating refractory cardiac tissue: the volume-averaged bidomain model vs. the cell-based EMI model

Reimer, J.; Dominguez-Rivera, S. A.; Sundnes, J.; Spiteri, R. J.

2023-04-12 physiology
10.1101/2023.04.10.536323 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The refractory period of cardiac tissue can be quantitatively described using strength-interval (SI) curves. The information captured in SI curves is pertinent to the design of anti-arrhythmic devices including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. As computational cardiac modelling becomes more prevalent, it is feasible to consider the generation of computationally derived SI curves as a supplement or precursor to curves that are experimentally derived. It is beneficial, therefore, to examine the profiles of the SI curves produced by different cardiac tissue models to determine whether some models capture the refractory period more accurately than others. In this study, we compare the unipolar SI curves of two tissue models: the current state-of-the-art bidomain model and the recently developed extracellular-membrane-intracellular (EMI) model. The EMI models resolution of individual cell structure makes it a more detailed model than the bidomain model, which forgoes the structure of individual cardiac cells in favour of treating them homogeneously as a continuum. We find that the resulting SI curves elucidate differences between the models, including that the behaviour of the EMI model is noticeably closer to the refractory behaviour of experimental data compared to that of the bidomain model. These results hold implications for future computational pacemaker simulations and shed light on the predicted refractory properties of cardiac tissue from each model. Author summaryMathematical modelling and computational simulation of cardiac activity have the potential to greatly enhance our understanding of heart function and improve the precision of cardiac medicine. The current state-of-the-art model is the bidomain model, which considers a volume average of cardiac activity. Although the bidomain model has had success in several applications, in other situations, its approach may obscure critical details of heart function. The extracellular-membrane-intracellular (EMI) model is a recently developed model of cardiac tissue that addresses this limitation. It models cardiac cells individually; therefore, it offers significantly greater physiological accuracy than bidomain simulations. This increase in accuracy comes at a higher computational cost, however. To explore the benefits of one model over the other, here we compare the performance of the bidomain and EMI models in a pacing study of cardiac tissue often employed in pacemaker design. We find that the behaviour of the EMI model is noticeably closer to experimental data than the behaviour of the bidomain model. These results hold implications for future pacemaker design and improve our understanding of the two models in relation to one another.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
3
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.2%
8
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
10
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
11
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
14
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Biological Cybernetics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
16
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
20
Journal of General Physiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
21
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
23
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%