Back

Comparative Thermal Effects of Single Shot Pulsed Field Ablation Systems using a Thermochromic Hydrogel

Gill, J.; Saija, C.; Sagar, V.; Zuberi, Z.; Bajpai, A.; Rhode, K.; Leung, L. W.; Gallagher, M. M.

2026-06-04 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354772 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Pulse-field ablation (PFA) is regarded as a non-thermal ablation modality, but there is an increasing range of complications that could be due to thermal effects. Methods The hydrogel undergoes permanent colour change when a target temperature is reached allowing direct visualisation of the surface thermal footprint and depth. Comparative lesion sets using a variable loop circular catheter (VP), circular over-the-wire catheter (PS) and pentaspline catheter (FP) were performed. Protocols included single and stacked applications with variation of force, irrigation, and voltage. The hydrogel lesions were analysed en-face and by section using digital image analysis. Results All 3 PFA catheters tested had significant thermal footprints. The VP catheter had the largest mean surface footprint (156.1mm2) and thermal depth (1.31mm) compared to the other two catheters (PS 55.4mm2 & 1.1mm, FP 29.8mm2 & 1.05mm, p<0.005). Increasing irrigation showed a trend to reduce thermal footprint but did not achieve statistical significance. Increasing voltage increased thermal footprint, but increasing force had negligible effect. Stacked lesions incrementally increased thermal lesion footprint and depth in all catheters. Thermal depths of up to 2.4mm were observed. Areas of darkening and degradation of the hydrogel were observed with the VP and FP catheters, consisting of up to 47% of lesion area. No darkening was observed with the PS catheter. Conclusions There are significant thermal footprints in all the systems tested. Temperatures exceeding 60oC have been demonstrated, comparable to radiofrequency ablation, and this may explain the mechanism of injury in some reports of collateral damage during PFA.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
2
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.6%
4
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
6
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
7
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
8
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
9
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
11
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
12
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
13
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
15
Biomaterials
78 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
16
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
17
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
21
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.7%
26
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
28
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%