ReviewBioelectricity2019
Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation.
Review in Bioelectricity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
- Article
- Surgical Ablation of Cardiac Tissue with Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields in Swine.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- Action spectra and mechanisms of (in) efficiency of bipolar electric pulses at electroporation.Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Identification of electroporation sites in the complex lipid organization of the plasma membrane.eLife · 2022Article
- How to alleviate cardiac injury from electric shocks at the cellular level.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- HumanFrontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Electroporation safety factor of 300 nanosecond and 10 millisecond defibrillation in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.PloS one · 2021Article
- The interplay of excitation and electroporation in nanosecond pulse stimulation.Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Review
- Quadrupoles for Remote Electrostimulation Incorporating Bipolar Cancellation.Bioelectricity · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this review article is to summarize our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of cardiac defibrillation with nanosecond shocks. Experiments in isolated hearts, using optical mapping of the electrical activity, have demonstrated that nanosecond shocks can defibrillate with lower energies than conventional millisecond shocks. Single defibrillation strength nanosecond shocks do not cause obvious damage, but repeated stimulation leads to deterioration of the hearts. In isolated myocytes, nanosecond pulses can also stimulate at lower energies than at longer pulses and cause less electroporation (propidium uptake). The mechanism is likely electroporation of the plasma membrane. Repeated stimulation leads to distorted calcium gradients.
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.