ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Preclinical evaluation of reversible pulsed electrical field: electrophysiological and histological assessment of myocardium.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Atrial tachycardia of left atrial appendage origin treated with pulsed field ablation using a linear-tip catheter: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2025Article
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
Background: Pulsed field ablation, as a non-thermal ablation modality, has received increasing attention. The aim of this study is to explore whether a reversible pulsed electric field (RPEF) can temporarily inhibit electrical conduction and provide a novel method for precise ablation of arrhythmia. Methods: RPEF energy was delivered from an ablation catheter to the atrium of six dogs, followed by a series of electrogram and histology assessments. Results: RPEF ablation of ordinary myocardium resulted in an average reduction of 68.3% (range, 53.7%-83.8%) in electrogram amplitude, while 5 min later, the amplitude in eight electrograms returned to 77.9% (range, 72.4%-87.3%) of baseline. Similarly, the amplitude of the sinoatrial node electrograms reduced by an average of 73.0% (range, 60.2%-84.4%) after RPEF ablation, but recovered to 84.9% (range, 80.3%-88.5%) of baseline by 5 min. No necrotic change was detected in histopathology. Transient third-degree atrioventricular block occurred following the ablation of the maximum His potential sites with RPEF, the duration of which was voltage dependent. The histopathological results showed necrosis of the myocardium at the ablation sites but no injury to His bundle cells. Conclusions: RPEF can be applied to transiently block electrical conduction in myocardial tissues contributing to precise ablation.
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.