ArticleFrontiers in physiology2024
Pulsed electric field performance calculator tool based on an
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed Field Ablation Therapy Parameters: Enhancing Lesion Depth While Reducing Musculoskeletal Stimulation and Thermal Response in an Irrigated Tip Catheter: A Comprehensive Study Using In Silico, In Vitro, and In Vivo Models.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Pulse Field Ablation for Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia in a Patient With LVAD: Safety and Feasibility.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Role of Computational Modelling in Enhancing Thermal Safety During Cardiac Ablation.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) is a novel non-thermal method for cardiac ablation, relying on irreversible electroporation induced by high-energy pulsed electric fields (PEFs) to create localized lesions in the heart atria. A significant challenge in optimizing PFA treatments is determining the lethal electric field threshold (EFT), which governs ablation volume and varies with PEF waveform parameters. However, the proprietary nature of device developer's waveform characteristics and the lack of standardized nonclinical testing methods have left optimal EFTs for cardiac ablation uncertain. Methods: To address this gap, we introduced a laboratory protocol employing human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) in monolayer format to evaluate the impact of a range of clinically relevant biphasic pulse parameters on lethal EFT and adiabatic heating (AH). Cell death areas were assessed using fluorescent dyes and confocal microscopy, while lethal EFTs were quantified through comparison with electric field numerical simulations. Results and conclusion: Our study confirmed a strong correlation between cell death in hiPSC-CMs and the number and duration of pulses in each train, with pulse repetition frequency exerting a comparatively weaker influence. Fitting of these results through machine learning algorithms were used to develop an open-source online calculator. By estimating lethal EFT and associated temperature increases for diverse pulse parameter combinations, this tool, once validated, has the potential to significantly reduce reliance on animal models during early-stage device de-risking and performance assessment. This tool also offers a promising avenue for advancing PFA technology for cardiac ablation medical devices to enhance patient outcomes.
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.