ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Is a single lethal electric field threshold sufficient to characterize the lesion size in computational modeling of cardiac pulsed-field ablation?
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. 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.
- Temperature as a "hidden dose" in pulsed field ablation: toward temperature-aware workflows and reproducible reporting.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Computational Multiscale Modeling of Pulsed Field Ablation Considering Conductivity and Damage Anisotropy Reveals Deep Lesion Morphologies.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a novel cardiac ablation technology based on irreversible electroporation (IRE). PFA computational models rely on identification of a lethal electric field threshold to predict the IRE area. However, the predicted lesion anisotropy ratios (width over depth) vary extensively among recent studies, and these discrepancies remain a subject of discussion. Objective: This work aims to evaluate the predicted lesion anisotropy ratios using a PFA computational model by applying it to an open-chest in vivo porcine model geometry. Methods: Six domestic swine underwent epicardial PFA applications using a previously described waveform protocol. Animals were killed at least 3 hours after the last ablation, and lesions were assessed using triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining. Numeric simulations were performed on a segmented and meshed porcine thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan, mimicking the open-chest experimental setup. Results: The maximum width of all simulated lesions was observed at the epicardial surface. The anisotropy ratios (AR) of the experimental lesions were smaller than the simulated ones (AR experimental vs simulated, 1.0-1.7 vs 2-2.7; Q1-Q3 quartiles). Increasing the peak voltage resulted in larger lesions; however, the computational model clearly underestimated the increase in lesion depth compared with the experimental data. Conclusion: Our computational model shows that a single lethal electric field threshold is insufficient to accurately predict both lesion depth and width in cardiac PFA. Our study suggests that for the given PFA waveforms, a threshold between 270 and 500 V/cm provides satisfactory lesion depth estimations, and a higher threshold between 790 and 1000 V/cm better captures the lesion width.
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.