ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Impact of pulse duration on cardiac electroporation: nanosecond pulses enhance cardiomyocyte selectivity and promote a Raman-detected shift towards apoptotic cell death.
Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nanosecond pulsed field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: feasibility, safety, and skeletal muscle activation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPulsed field ablation (PFA), a cardiac ablation technique using microsecond pulsed electric fields (µsPEF), is widely used in clinical settings, while nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEF) have recently entered clinical trials. Selective ablation of cardiomyocytes over endothelial cells is critical to prevent adverse remodelling, arrhythmias, and thrombosis, yet comparative data on nsPEF vs. µsPEF remain limited. This study investigates the cytotoxic effects and cell death mechanisms induced by nsPEF and µsPEF in cardiac and endothelial cells. METHODS AND
resultsHuman cardiomyocytes and endothelial cells were exposed to varying electric field intensities with nsPEF and µsPEF using custom-built automated setup to assess permeabilization and cell death. Raman spectroscopy evaluated biochemical changes in cardiomyocytes following electroporation. Ex vivo epicardial ablation was performed on murine hearts using customized electrodes. Maximal cardiomyocyte death occurred 24 h after both pulse types in vitro. Ex vivo, both pulse types produced visible myocardial lesions as early as 1 h post-exposure, with lesion size progressively increasing up to 4 h. Microsecond pulsed electric fields induced significantly greater endothelial damage (ED50: 1.18 kV/cm) than damage to cardiomyocytes (ED50: 1.28 kV/cm), whereas nsPEF affected both cell types equally (ED50: 7.27 kV/cm vs. 7.24 kV/cm). Raman spectroscopy analysis of exposed cells indicated that µsPEF predominantly triggered necrotic or unregulated cell death, while nsPEF exposure was associated with regulated, apoptotic cell death.
conclusionPulse duration critically determines electroporation selectivity and downstream death pathways. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields favoured regulated cell death and cardiomyocyte selectivity, highlighting its potential to improve the safety and durability of PFA.
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.