ArticlePhysiological reports2022
Human cardiomyocytes are more susceptible to irreversible electroporation by pulsed electric field than human esophageal cells.
Article in Physiological reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiological Tissue Response to Pulsed-Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from Biomarker Kinetics.Physiological research · 2026Article
- Pulsed electric field and radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia: a propensity score-matched comparison (PFA-SVT study).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Advent of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: State-of-the-Art Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Pulsed Field Ablation: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Complexity and Perplexity of Pulsed Field Ablation: An Engineering Perspective.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Review
- Cardiac selectivity in pulsed field ablation.Current opinion in cardiology · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation for accessory pathways: a pilot study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Observational
- State-of-the-art pulsed field ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: ongoing evolution and future perspective.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanisms, Advantages, and Limitations.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Utilizing Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells to Study Cardiac Electroporation Pulsed-Field Ablation.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2024Article
- Opportunities and Challenges in Catheter-Based Irreversible Electroporation for Ventricular Tachycardia.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2024Review
- Pulsed electric field performance calculator tool based on anFrontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Focal point-by-point pulsed field ablation for the treatment of atrial arrhythmias in patients with challenging anatomy where radiofrequency ablation cannot be applied: A case series.HeartRhythm case reports · 2024Article
- The Effects of Interphase and Interpulse Delays and Pulse Widths on Induced Muscle Contractions, Pain and Therapeutic Efficacy in Electroporation-Based Therapies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Determination of lethal electric field threshold for pulsed field ablation inFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Human cardiomyocytes are more susceptible to irreversible electroporation by pulsed electric field than human esophageal cells.Physiological reports · 2022Article
- HumanFrontiers in physiology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulse electric field-based (PEF) ablation is a technique whereby short high-intensity electric fields inducing irreversible electroporation (IRE) are applied to various tissues. Here, we implemented a standardized in vitro model to compare the effects of biphasic symmetrical pulses (100 pulses, 1-10 μs phase duration (d), 10-1000 Hz pulse repetition rate (f)) using two different human cellular models: human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) and human esophageal smooth muscle cells (hESMCs) cultured in monolayer format. We report the PEF-induced irreversibly electroporated cell monolayer areas and the corresponding electric field thresholds (EFTs) for both cardiac and esophageal cultures. Our results suggest marked cell type specificity with EFT estimated to be 2-2.5 times lower in hiPSC-CMs than in hESMCs when subjected to identical PEF treatments (e.g., 0.90 vs 1.85 kV/cm for the treatment of 100 pulses with d = 5 μs, f = 10 Hz, and 0.65 vs 1.67 kV/cm for the treatment of 100 pulses with d = 10 μs, f = 10 Hz). PEF treatment can result in increased temperature around the stimulating electrodes and lead to unanticipated thermal tissue damage that is proportional to the peak temperature rise and to the duration of the PEF-induced elevated temperatures. In our study, temperature increases ranged from less than 1°C to as high as 30°C, however, all temperature changes were transient and quickly returned to baseline and the highest observed ∆T returned to 50% of its maximum recorded temperature in tens of seconds.
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.