Irreversible electroporation for catheter-based cardiac ablation: a systematic review of the preclinical experience

Alan Sugrue, Vaibhav Vaidya, Chance Witt, Christopher V. DeSimone, Omar Yasin, Elad Maor, Ammar M. Killu, Suraj Kapa, Christopher J. McLeod, Damijan Miklavčič, Samuel J. Asirvatham*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

57 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) utilizing high voltage pulses is an emerging strategy for catheter-based cardiac ablation with considerable growth in the preclinical arena. Methods: A systematic search for articles was performed from three sources (PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar). The primary outcome was the efficacy of tissue ablation with characteristics of lesion formation evaluated by histologic analysis. The secondary outcome was focused on safety and damage to collateral structures. Results: Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria. IRE was most commonly applied to the ventricular myocardium (n = 7/16, 44%) by a LifePak 9 Defibrillator (n = 9/16, 56%), NanoKnife Generator (n = 2/16, 13%), or other custom generators (n = 5/16, 31%). There was significant heterogeneity regarding electroporation protocols. On histological analysis, IRE was successful in creating ablation lesions with variable transmurality depending on the electric pulse parameters and catheter used. Conclusion: Preclinical studies suggest that cardiac tissue ablation using IRE shows promise in delivering efficacious, safe lesions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)251-265
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 15 Sep 2019

Keywords

  • Arrhythmias
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Cardiac ablation
  • Catheter ablation
  • Irreversible electroporation
  • Pulsed electric field
  • Translational studies

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Irreversible electroporation for catheter-based cardiac ablation: a systematic review of the preclinical experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this