ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2024
Absence of Arrhythmogenicity with Biphasic Pulsed Electric Fields Delivered to Porcine Airways.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- See and Strike: A Dual-Force Paradigm for Real-Time Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Non-Thermal Ablation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unexpected ventricular fibrillation triggered by pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation.HeartRhythm case reports · 2025Article
- Pulsed electric field ablation safety and characterization near sensitive structures in lung: a preclinical and clinical case series study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Arrhythmogenicity of monophasic and biphasic PFA waveforms in a porcine model.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulsed electric field (PEF) technologies treat many types of tissue. Many systems mandate synchronization to the cardiac cycle to avoid the induction of cardiac arrhythmias. Significant differences between PEF systems make the assessment of cardiac safety from one technology to another challenging. A growing body of evidence suggests that shorter duration biphasic pulses obviate the need for cardiac synchronization, even when delivered in a monopolar fashion. This study theoretically evaluates the risk profile of different PEF parameters. It then tests a monopolar, biphasic, microsecond-scale PEF technology for arrhythmogenic potential. PEF applications of increasing likelihood to induce an arrhythmia were delivered. The energy was delivered throughout the cardiac cycle, including both single and multiple packets, and then with concentrated delivery on the t-wave. There were no sustained changes to the electrocardiogram waveform or to the cardiac rhythm, despite delivering energy during the most vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle, and delivery of multiple packets of PEF energy across the cardiac cycle. Only isolated premature-atrial contractions (PAC) were observed. This study provides evidence that certain varieties of biphasic, monopolar PEF delivery do not require synchronized energy delivery to prevent harmful arrhythmias.
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.