ArticleCirculation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology2024
Utilizing Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells to Study Cardiac Electroporation Pulsed-Field Ablation.
Article in Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulsed field ablation for ventricular arrhythmias: From mechanistic foundations to clinical translation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Excitation and electroporation in genetically engineered excitable S-HEK cells exposed to electric pulses of different durations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac selectivity in pulsed field ablation.Current opinion in cardiology · 2025Review
- Analysing complex excitation patterns in cardiac tissue using wave event networks.Frontiers in network physiology · 2025Article
- Pulsed-field ablation: a revolution in atrial fibrillation therapy.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectroporation is a promising nonthermal ablation method for cardiac arrhythmia treatment. Although initial clinical studies found electroporation pulsed-field ablation (PFA) both safe and efficacious, there are significant knowledge gaps concerning the mechanistic nature and electrophysiological consequences of cardiomyocyte electroporation, contributed by the paucity of suitable human in vitro models. Here, we aimed to establish and characterize a functional in vitro model based on human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs)-derived cardiac tissue, and to study the fundamentals of cardiac PFA.
methodshiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes were seeded as circular cell sheets and subjected to different PFA protocols. Detailed optical mapping, cellular, and molecular characterizations were performed to study PFA mechanisms and electrophysiological outcomes.
resultsPFA generated electrically silenced lesions within the hiPSC-derived cardiac circular cell sheets, resulting in areas of conduction block. Both reversible and irreversible electroporation components were identified. Significant electroporation reversibility was documented within 5 to 15-minutes post-PFA. Irreversibly electroporated regions persisted at 24-hours post-PFA. Per single pulse, high-frequency PFA was less efficacious than standard (monophasic) PFA, whereas increasing pulse-number augmented lesion size and diminished reversible electroporation. PFA augmentation could also be achieved by increasing extracellular Ca
conclusionsCardiac electroporation may be studied using hiPSC-derived cardiac tissue, providing novel insights into PFA temporal and electrophysiological characteristics, facilitating electroporation protocol optimization, screening for potential PFA-sensitizers, and investigating the mechanistic nature of PFA antiarrhythmic properties.
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.