ArticleCardiovascular research2017
Low-energy defibrillation with nanosecond electric shocks.
Article in Cardiovascular research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of external defibrillator output and its impact on defibrillation protection of medical equipment.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Atrial fibrillation and flutter conversion with pulsed electric field delivery: preclinical proof of concept.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
- Excitation and electroporation in genetically engineered excitable S-HEK cells exposed to electric pulses of different durations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Protein-Mediated Electroporation in a Cardiac Voltage-Sensing Domain Due to an nsPEF Stimulus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Electrical Stimulation for Low-Energy Termination of Cardiac Arrhythmias: a Review.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2023Review
- Surgical Ablation of Cardiac Tissue with Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields in Swine.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- How to alleviate cardiac injury from electric shocks at the cellular level.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Electroporation safety factor of 300 nanosecond and 10 millisecond defibrillation in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.PloS one · 2021Article
- [Recent advances in external cardiac defibrillation techniques].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020Review
- The interplay of excitation and electroporation in nanosecond pulse stimulation.Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Review
- Article
- Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.Bioelectricity · 2019Review
- Wide-area low-energy surface stimulation of large mammalian ventricular tissue.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Excitation and electroporation by MHz bursts of nanosecond stimuli.Biochemical and biophysical research communications · 2019Article
- Excitation of murine cardiac myocytes by nanosecond pulsed electric field.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2019Article
- Excitation and injury of adult ventricular cardiomyocytes by nano- to millisecond electric shocks.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsReliable defibrillation with reduced energy deposition has long been the focus of defibrillation research. We studied the efficacy of single shocks of 300 ns duration in defibrillating rabbit hearts as well as the tissue damage they may cause. METHODS AND
resultsNew Zealand white rabbit hearts were Langendorff-perfused and two planar electrodes were placed on either side of the heart. Shocks of 300 ns duration and 0.3-3 kV amplitude were generated with a transmission line generator. Single nanosecond shocks consistently induced waves of electrical activation, with a stimulation threshold of 0.9 kV (over 3 cm) and consistent activation for shock amplitudes of 1.2 kV or higher (9/9 successful attempts). We induced fibrillation (35 episodes in 12 hearts) and found that single shock nanosecond-defibrillation could consistently be achieved, with a defibrillation threshold of 2.3-2.4 kV (over 3 cm), and consistent success at 3 kV (11/11 successful attempts). Shocks uniformly depolarized the tissue, and the threshold energy needed for nanosecond defibrillation was almost an order of magnitude lower than the energy needed for defibrillation with a monophasic 10 ms shock delivered with the same electrode configuration. For the parameters studied here, nanosecond defibrillation caused no baseline shift of the transmembrane potential (that could be indicative of electroporative damage), no changes in action potential duration, and only a brief change of diastolic interval, for one beat after the shock was delivered. Histological staining with tetrazolium chloride and propidium iodide showed that effective defibrillation was not associated with tissue death or with detectable electroporation anywhere in the heart (six hearts).
conclusionNanosecond-defibrillation is a promising technology that may allow clinical defibrillation with profoundly reduced energies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.