Literature DB >> 31542973

Cycled pulsing to mitigate thermal damage for multi-electrode irreversible electroporation therapy.

Timothy J O'Brien1, Melvin F Lorenzo1, Yajun Zhao1, Robert E Neal Ii2, John L Robertson1, S Nahum Goldberg3, Rafael V Davalos1.   

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluates the effects of various pulsing paradigms, on the irreversible electroporation (IRE) lesion, induced electric current, and temperature changes using a perfused porcine liver model. Materials and methods: A 4-monopolar electrode array delivered IRE therapy varying the pulse length and inter-pulse delay to six porcine mechanically perfused livers. Pulse paradigms included six forms of cycled pulsing schemes and the conventional pulsing scheme. Finite element models provided further insight into the effects of cycled pulsing on the temperature and thermal injury distribution.
Results: 'Single pulse cycle with no interpulse delay' deposited maximum average energy (2.34 ± 0.35 kJ) and produced the largest ratio of thermally damaged tissue area and IRE ablation area from all other pulse schemes (18.22%  ±  8.11, p < .0001 all pairwise comparisons). These compared favorably to the conventional algorithm (2.09 ± 0.37 kJ, 3.49%  ±  2.20, p < .0001, all comparisons). Though no statistical significance was found between groups, the '5 pulse cycle, 0 s delay' pulse paradigm produced the largest average IRE ablation cross sectional area (11.81 ± 1.97 cm2), while conventional paradigm yielded an average of 8.90 ± 0.91 cm2. Finite element modeling indicated a '10 pulse cycle, 10 s delay' generated the least thermal tissue damage and '1 pulse cycle, 0 s delay' pulse cycle sequence the most (0.47 vs. 3.76 cm2), over a lengthier treatment time (16.5 vs. 6.67 minutes). Conclusions: Subdividing IRE pulses and adding delays throughout the treatment can reduce white tissue coagulation and electric current, while maintaining IRE treatment sizes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cycled pulsing; irreversible electroporation; perfused organ model; thermal damage; thermal mitigation

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31542973     DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2019.1657187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Hyperthermia        ISSN: 0265-6736            Impact factor:   3.914


  4 in total

1.  A Comparative Modeling Study of Thermal Mitigation Strategies in Irreversible Electroporation Treatments.

Authors:  Kenneth N Aycock; Sabrina N Campelo; Rafael V Davalos
Journal:  J Heat Transfer       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 1.855

2.  Thermodynamic profiling during irreversible electroporation in porcine liver and pancreas: a case study series.

Authors:  Pierre Agnass; Eran van Veldhuisen; Jantien A Vogel; H Petra Kok; Mark J de Keijzer; Gerben Schooneveldt; Lianne R de Haan; John H Klaessens; Hester J Scheffer; Martijn R Meijerink; Krijn P van Lienden; Thomas M van Gulik; Michal Heger; Johannes Crezee; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2020-03-12

3.  Patient Derived Xenografts Expand Human Primary Pancreatic Tumor Tissue Availability for ex vivo Irreversible Electroporation Testing.

Authors:  Rebecca M Brock; Natalie Beitel-White; Sheryl Coutermarsh-Ott; Douglas J Grider; Melvin F Lorenzo; Veronica M Ringel-Scaia; Navid Manuchehrabadi; Robert C G Martin; Rafael V Davalos; Irving C Allen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A retrospective study of CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablation: clinical efficacy and safety.

Authors:  Ziyin Wang; Jian Lu; Wei Huang; Zhiyuan Wu; Ju Gong; Qingbing Wang; Qin Liu; Cangyi Wang; Yu Zhu; Xiaoyi Ding; Zhongmin Wang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 4.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.