A novel polarity configuration for enhancing ablation depth of pulsed field ablation: Design, modeling, and in vivo validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been increasingly used to cut off the delivery of abnormal electrical signals in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. A successful cut off requires forming a layer of transmural damage on the heart wall, and this layer depends on the depth of ablation by PFA. PURPOSE: This study aims to propose a novel polarity configuration of PFA to increase the ablation depth in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. METHOD: A novel polarity configuration was designed for a multi-electrode system, where the number of electrodes is greater than two. The polarity configuration in such multi-electrode system is called the paired-electrode interlaced configuration (PIC). The existing configuration called the single-electrode interlaced configuration (SIC) was used to compare with the PIC. To both the SIC and PIC, a full-SIC or a full-PIC is called when all electrodes (anode, cathode) in a catheter is used otherwise partial-SIC or partial-PIC is called. By the comparison between the full-SIC and full-PIC, the benefit of the PIC was exhibited as opposed to the SIC, but an extra ablation step was added in the PIC in order to form a continuous ablation zone. The other comparative study was taken between a partial-PIC and a partial-SIC with the same number of ablation step. In this study, a rabbit model was built by infusing 0.4% saline solution (at 37°C) into the rabbit's abdominal cavity which surrounds the liver. This model was considered as a biometric environment of the heart, namely cardiac-mimetic model (CMM). RESULT: The experimental results have shown that the full-PIC is superior to the full-SIC in the ablation depth, specifically in both the maximum (4.14 ± 0.55 mm vs. 3.35 ± 0.26 mm, p < 0.01) and the minimum (3.18 ± 0.29 mm vs. 2.76 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.05), and in the ablation width, specifically only in the maximum (8.27 ± 0.76 mm vs. 7.09 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.019) under an identical ablation time (i.e., 5 s). It is noted that the minimum ablation width did not show a significant difference between the full-PIC and full-SIC (specifically, 5.61 ± 0.86 mm vs. 4.67 ± 0.73 mm, p = 0.069). Considering the lethal electric field threshold (LEFT) to be 600 V/cm for liver tissues, the maximum and minimum ablation depth generated by the full-PIC was found larger than that by the full-SIC (3.90 vs. 3.52 mm, and 3.03 vs. 2.48 mm, respectively) in the simulation. Meanwhile, similar experiment results by comparing the partial-PIC and partial-SIC have been obtained, which shows a significant increase in both the maximum ablation depth (4.81 ± 0.87 mm vs. 3.30 ± 0.73 mm, p < 0.001) and the maximum ablation width (8.19 ± 0.85 mm vs. 6.47 ± 1.13 mm, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: (1) The electric field in the PIC is concentrated around the pair of electrodes, and the pattern of the field is a significant factor in the energy delivery along the direction of the depth. (2) The increase of the ablation depth can significantly expand the range of the tissue on the heart, where the PFA can apply, and can therefore readily form a layer of transmural damage on the heart wall at positions at which the wall is thicker.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".