Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two biphasic defibrillator waveforms for the conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm

Techniques improving electrical cardioversion success for patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Electrical cardioversion is commonly used to restore sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but procedural technique and clinical success vary. We sought to identify techniques associated with electrical cardioversion success for AF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the grey literature from inception to October 2022. We abstracted data on initial and cumulative cardioversion success. We pooled data using random-effects models. From 15 207 citations, we identified 45 randomized trials and 16 observational studies. In randomized trials, biphasic when compared with monophasic waveforms resulted in higher rates of initial [16 trials, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.29-2.28] and cumulative success (18 trials, RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16). Fixed, high-energy (≥200 J) shocks when compared with escalating energy resulted in a higher rate of initial success (four trials, RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.33-1.98). Manual pressure when compared with no pressure resulted in higher rates of initial (two trials, RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21-3.95) and cumulative success (two trials, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.34). Cardioversion success did not differ significantly for other interventions, including: antero-apical/lateral vs. antero-posterior positioned pads (initial: 11 trials, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97-1.39; cumulative: 14 trials, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.06); rectilinear/pulsed biphasic vs. biphasic truncated exponential waveform (initial: four trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.34; cumulative: four trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08) and cathodal vs. anodal configuration (cumulative: two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic waveforms, high-energy shocks, and manual pressure increase the success of electrical cardioversion for AF. Other interventions, especially pad positioning, require further study.

Absence of Significant Myocardial Injury following Elective Direct Current Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation

Background

Direct current (DC) cardioversion is used to terminate cardiac arrhythmias. Current guidelines list cardioversion as a cause of myocardial injury.

Objective

This study determined whether external DC cardioversion results in myocardial injury measured by serial changes in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI).

Methods

This was a prospective study of patients undergoing elective external DC cardioversion for atrial fibrillation. hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI were measured precardioversion and at least 6 hours postcardioversion. Myocardial injury was present when there were significant changes in both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI.

Results

Ninety-eight subjects were analyzed. Median cumulative energy delivered was 121.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 102.2-302.7) J. Multiple cases 23 (23.5%) required 300 J or more. Maximum cumulative energy delivered was 2455.1 J. There were small significant changes in both hs-cTnT (median precardioversion 12 [IQR 7-19) ng/L], median postcardioversion 13 [IQR 8-21] ng/L; P < .001) and hs-cTnI (median precardioversion 5 [IQR 3-10) ng/L], median postcardioversion 7 [IQR 3.6-11) ng/L; P < .001). Results were similar in patients with high-energy shocks and did not vary based on precardioversion values. Only 2 (2%) cases met criteria for myocardial injury.

Conclusion

DC cardioversion resulted in a small but statistically significant changes in hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI in 2% of patients studied irrespective of shock energy. Patients with marked troponin elevations after elective cardioversion should be assessed for other causes of myocardial injury. It should not be assumed the myocardial injury was from the cardioversion.

A Randomized Comparison of Delivered Energy in Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: Biphasic Truncated Exponential Versus Pulsed Biphasic Waveforms

A few randomized trials have compared impedance-compensated biphasic defibrillators in clinical use. We aim to compare pulsed biphasic (PB) and biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms in a non-inferiority cardioversion (CVS) study. This was a prospective monocentric randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients admitted for elective CVS of atrial fibrillation (AF) between February 2019 and March 2020 were alternately randomized to treatment with either a PB defibrillator (DEFIGARD TOUCH7, Schiller Médical, Wissembourg, France) or a BTE high-energy (BTE-HE) defibrillator (LIFEPAK15, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA). Fixed-energy protocol (200–200–200 J) was administered. CVS success was accepted if sinus rhythm was restored at 1 min post-shock. The study design considered non-inferiority testing of the primary outcome: cumulative delivered energy (CDE). Seventy-three out of 78 randomized patients received allocated intervention: 38 BTE-HE (52%), 35 PB (48%). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups (p > 0.05). Both waveforms had similar CDE (mean ± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval): BTE-HE (253.9 ± 120.2 J, 214–293 J) vs. PB (226.0 ± 109.8 J, 188–264 J), p = 0.31. Indeed, effective PB shocks delivered significantly lower energies by mean of 25.6 J (95% CI 24–27.1 J, p < 0.001). Success rates were similar (BTE-HE vs. PB): 1 min first-shock (84.2% vs. 82.9%), 1 min CVS (97.4% vs. 94.3%), 2 h CVS (94.7% vs. 94.3%), 24 h CVS (92.1% vs. 94.3%), p > 0.05. Safety analysis did not find CVS hazards, reporting insignificant changes of myocardial-specific biomarkers, transient and rare ST-segment deviations, and no case of harmful tachyarrhythmias and apnea. Cardioversion of AF with fixed-energy protocol 200–200–200 J was highly efficient and safe for both PB and BTE-HE waveforms. These similar performances were achieved despite differences in the waveforms’ technical design, associated with significantly lower delivered energy for the effective PB shocks. Clinical Trial Registration: Registration number: NCT04032678, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov.

Maximum-fixed energy shocks for cardioverting atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Direct-current cardioversion is one of the most commonly performed procedures in cardiology. Low-escalating energy shocks are common practice but the optimal energy selection is unknown. We compared maximum-fixed and low-escalating energy shocks for cardioverting atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a single-centre, single-blinded, randomized trial, we allocated elective atrial fibrillation patients to cardioversion using maximum-fixed (360-360-360 J) or low-escalating (125-150-200 J) biphasic truncated exponential shocks. The primary endpoint was sinus rhythm 1 min after cardioversion. Safety endpoints were any arrhythmia, myocardial injury, skin burns, and patient-reported pain after cardioversion. We randomized 276 patients, and baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups (mean ± standard deviation age: 68 ± 9 years, male: 72%, atrial fibrillation duration >1 year: 30%). Sinus rhythm 1 min after cardioversion was achieved in 114 of 129 patients (88%) in the maximum-fixed energy group, and in 97 of 147 patients (66%) in the low-escalating energy group (between-group difference; 22 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 13-32, P < 0.001). Sinus rhythm after first shock occurred in 97 of 129 patients (75%) in the maximum-fixed energy group compared to 50 of 147 patients (34%) in the low-escalating energy group (between-group difference; 41 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 30-51). There was no significant difference between groups in any safety endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Maximum-fixed energy shocks were more effective compared with low-escalating energy shocks for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. We found no difference in any safety endpoint.

Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter: Comparative Study of Pulsed vs. Low Energy Biphasic Truncated Exponential Waveforms

Background

Despite the widespread use of biphasic waveforms for cardioversion and defibrillation, the efficacy and safety of shocks has only been compared in a few studies.

Methods

This retrospective study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) pulsed energy (PE) waveform with a BTE low energy (LE) waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). The treatment energies were following an escalating protocol for PE waveform (120-200-200J in AF and 30-120-200J in AFL) and LE waveform (100-200-200J in AF and 30-100-200J in AFL). The protocol was stopped at successful cardioversion (sinus rhythm at 1 minute post-shock), otherwise after the 3rd shock. If the 3rd BTE shock failed, a monophasic shock of 360J was delivered.

Results

From May 2008 to November 2017, 193 patients (153 PE, 40 LE) were included in the study. Both groups significantly differed in a few characteristics, including chest circumference (p<0.05). After adjustment, the success rate was not significantly different for the two waveforms (94.5% PE vs 92.5% LE, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 0.25 [0.03-2.2]).There was no difference in safety: post-shock changes in Hsc-TnI levels were similar (p=0.25). The efficient cumulative energy was particularly related with BSA (β = 131.5, p=0.05), AF/AFL duration (β = 0.24, p=0.01) and gender (β = 61.8, p=0.05).

Conclusions

The major clinical implications of this study concern the high success rate of cardioversion with both biphasic pulses and no superiority of LE over PE waveform with an excellent safety profile without post-shock myocardial injuries.

Cardioversion Efficacy Using Pulsed Biphasic or Biphasic Truncated Exponential Waveforms: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Several different defibrillators are currently used for cardioversion and defibrillation of cardiac arrhythmias. The efficacy of a novel pulsed biphasic (PB) waveform has not been compared to other biphasic waveforms. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PB shocks with biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients undergoing cardioversion of atrial fibrillation or ‐flutter.

Methods and Results

This prospective, randomized study included patients admitted for elective direct current cardioversion. Patients were randomized to receive cardioversion using either PB or BTE shocks. We used escalating shocks until sinus rhythm was obtained or to a maximum of 4 shocks. Patients randomized to PB shocks received 90, 120, 150, and 200 J and patients randomized to BTE shocks received 100, 150, 200, and 250 J, as recommended by the manufacturers. In total, 69 patients (51%) received PB shocks and 65 patients (49%) BTE shocks. Successful cardioversion, defined as sinus rhythm 4 hours after cardioversion, was achieved in 43 patients (62%) using PB shocks and in 56 patients (86%) using BTE shocks; ratio 1.4 (95% CI 1.1–1.7) (P=0.002). There was no difference in safety (ie, myocardial injury judged by changes in high‐sensitive troponin I levels; ratio 1.1) (95% CI 1.0–1.3), P=0.15. The study was terminated prematurely because of an adverse event.

Conclusions

Cardioversion using a BTE waveform was more effective when compared with a PB waveform. There was no difference in safety between the 2 waveforms, as judged by changes in troponin I levels.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02317029.

A Grouped Up-and-Down Method Used for Efficacy Comparison Between Two Different Defibrillation Waveforms

Electrical defibrillation, which consists of delivering a therapeutic dose of the electrical current to the fibrillating heart with the aid of a defibrillator, is still the only effective way to treat life-threatening ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, the efficacy of electrical therapy for terminating VF is highly dependent on the waveform applied. When new defibrillation waveforms or techniques are developed, their efficacy needs to be accurately evaluated and compared to those in use. A common method for the comparison of defibrillation efficacy is to estimate and compare the individual defibrillation threshold (DFT) by constructing dose response curves or using an up-and-down method. Since DFT is calculated by repetitive and sequential shocks, there will be variability for each measurement and for each individual. This creates a considerable uncertainty for paired comparison. In this paper, a novel grouped up-and-down method is developed for the comparison of defibrillation efficacy between two different defibrillation waveforms or techniques. The efficacy of two commonly used biphasic defibrillation waveforms was compared in a porcine model of cardiac arrest using the developed method. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is more sensitive for efficacy comparison and requires less defibrillation attempts compared with traditional DFT methods.

Current is better than energy as predictor of success for biphasic defibrillatory shocks in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

The evidence that monophasic defibrillation success is mainly determined by current is secure. However, modern defibrillators use biphasic waveforms. The aim of this study was to compare energy, peak voltage and peak current in predicting biphasic shock success in a porcine model of ventricular fibrillation (VF) where the impedance varies within a wide of ranges.

METHODS

In 14 domestic male pigs weighing between 27 and 38 kg, VF was electrically induced and untreated for 15 s. Animals were randomized to receive defibrillation attempts from one of two defibrillators with different impedance compensation methods. A grouped up-and-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to maintain the average success rate in the neighborhood of 50%. After a recovery interval of 5 min, the testing sequence was repeated for a total of 60 test shocks for each animal.

RESULTS

A high defibrillation success was observed when high peak current was delivered. The area under ROC curve for predicting shock success was 0.681 for peak current, 0.585 for peak voltage and 0.562 for energy. The odds ratio revealed that peak current was a better predictor (OR=1.321, p<0.001) for defibrillation outcome compared with energy (OR=0.979, p<0.001) and peak voltage (OR=1.000, p=0.69) when multivariable logistic regression was conducted.

CONCLUSION

In this porcine model of VF within a wide range of transthoracic impedance, peak current was a better indicator for shock success than the currently used energy for biphasic defibrillatory shocks. This finding may encourage design of new current-based biphasic defibrillators.

Esophageal electric fields are predictive of atrial defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia characterized by disorganized cardiac electrical activity. Defibrillation electrode placement has been shown to affect the amount of energy and number of shocks required to defibrillate. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between esophageal electric fields (EEFs) and atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) to determine the feasibility of using EEFs during a low-strength shock to predict patient-specific defibrillation electrode placements.

METHODS

AF was induced and defibrillated according to a Bayesian four-shock protocol for 12-electrode placements in six pigs. EEFs were measured during each of the four shocks of the protocol and during a 1-J shock for each electrode placement. Squared EEFs (EEF(2) s) during all shocks were compared to the ADFTs using a linear regression.

RESULTS

There was a negative relationship between EEF(2) s during the 1-J shocks and ADFTs, with median R(2) values of 0.863 and 0.840 for anterior-anterior (AA) and anterior-posterior (AP) electrode placements, respectively. There was a strong, positive relationship between applied energy and EEF(2) s, with median R(2) values of at least 0.866 for all animals. The placement with the highest EEF(2) resulted in the lowest ADFT for both AA and AP placements in four of six pigs. In the other two animals, this held for one electrode set but not both.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a strong negative relationship between EEF(2) s during 1-J shocks and ADFTs for both AA and AP electrode placements. These preliminary results suggest that using EEF(2) s to predict patient-specific electrode placements is feasible.

[Direct current cardioversion in Abidjan: report of a ten-year practice in Institute of Cardiology of Abidjan, Ivory Coast]

Direct current cardioversion is effective in arrhythmias' termination. Few is known about its use in our practice. This work aims to report its outcomes over a ten-year period in Abidjan.

METHOD

One thousand, three hundred and ninety one charts of arrhythmic patients were reviewed.

RESULTS

Cardioversion was attempted in 102 patients. One hundred and eighty one shocks were delivered with a mean energy of 262, 1 joules. Success occurred in 84 patients (82,3%). Cardioversion failed in 18 patients mostly in atrial fibrillation. Eight serious complications (7,8%) occurred including 1 sinus node dysfunction, 1 pulmonary oedema, 1 metrorrhagia, 2 stroke, 1 pulmonary embolism. Two patients with ventricular tachycardia died of end-stage heart failure and aftermath of a mitral valve surgery.

CONCLUSION

Direct current cardioversion is effective and safe in our practice. Complications are predominantly due to the medical environment such as antiarrhythmic drugs use or clinical conditions.

A comparison of defibrillation efficacy between different impedance compensation techniques in high impedance porcine model

AIM OF STUDY

Impedance compensation methods differ markedly among manufacturers and can play an important role in defibrillation success. In this study we compared the efficacy of two different commercial defibrillators based on defibrillation success in a high impedance porcine model of cardiac arrest. The first defibrillator (A) compensates high impedance by controlling current with fixed shock duration, while the second defibrillator (B) by prolonging the shock duration.

METHODS

In 10 domestic male pigs weighing between 17 and 28 kg, ventricular fibrillation was electrically induced and untreated for 15s. Animals were randomized to receive defibrillations with either defibrillator A or defibrillator B, at maximum energy settings of which were 200 J for the defibrillator A and 360 J for the defibrillator B. A grouped up-down defibrillation threshold testing protocol was used to compare the success rate between the two defibrillators. A variable resistance, ranging from 80 to 200 ohm was placed in series with the defibrillation pads. After a recovery interval of 5 min, the sequence was repeated for a total of 60 test shocks for each animal.

RESULTS

The measured total pathway impedance was in a range of 108-278 ohm. The combined success rate was 49.5% for the two defibrillators in a total of 600 testing shocks. The success rate was significantly higher when the defibrillator A was employed in comparison with defibrillator B (63% vs. 36%, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

For transthoracic impedances greater than average, the current-based compensation technique was more effective than the duration-based compensation technique.

Biphasic external defibrillation for adults in ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia

Cardiac arrest, as a result of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, is a common phenomenon, and the only treatment available is defibrillation. Currently, defibrillators deliver either a monophasic or biphasic shock, depending on the device used. In 2005, the American Heart Association published new cardiac arrest management guidelines, which included directions about energy selection for both types of defibrillators. These guidelines created a platform to address misconceptions that exist in the practice setting with regard to the use of biphasic defibrillators. The purpose of this literature review was to highlight the issues related to the practical use of biphasic energy, including optimal energy selection and safety.

Intracardiac atrial defibrillation

Intravascular ventricular defibrillation and intravascular atrial defibrillation have many similarities. An important factor influencing the outcome of the shock is the potential gradient field created throughout the ventricles or the atria by the shock. A minimum potential gradient is required throughout the ventricles and probably the atria in order to defibrillate. The value of this minimum potential gradient is affected by several factors, including the duration, tilt, and number of phases of the waveform. For shock strengths near the defibrillation threshold, earliest activation following failed shocks arises in a region in which the potential gradient is low. The defibrillation threshold energy can be decreased by adding a third and even a fourth defibrillation electrode in regions where the shock potential gradient is low for the shock field created by the first two defibrillation electrodes and giving two sequential shocks, each through a different set of electrodes. However, the addition of more electrodes and sequential shocks complicates both the device and its implantation. Because patients are conscious when the atrial defibrillation shock is given, they experience pain during the shock, which is one of the main drawbacks of intravascular atrial defibrillation. Unfortunately, the pain threshold for defibrillation shocks is so low that a shock less than 1 J is uncomfortable and is not much less painful than shocks several times stronger. Therefore, even though electrode configurations exist that have lower atrial defibrillation threshold energy requirements than the atrial defibrillation threshold with standard defibrillation electrode configurations used in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for ventricular defibrillation, they are not clinically practical because their shocks are almost as painful as with the standard ICD electrode configurations. Such electrode configurations would make the ICD more complicated, leading to greater difficulty and longer time required for implantation.

Electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: different methods for a safe and effective technique

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia observed in clinical practice. Many different therapeutic approaches are available at present but none may be considered the gold standard treatment. Antiarrhythmic drugs are not very effective agents to cardiovert persistent atrial fibrillation and, therefore, the technique most frequently used to restore sinus rhythm is external direct current cardioversion, which has proved to be safe and very effective. Esophageal cardioversion is an alternative method that could obviate some of the limitations of the external technique, such as the high energy required, need for anesthesia and longer hospital stay. Another technique performed during the last two decades is internal cardioversion, but at present, the advantage of this technique is limited to the small proportion of cases of unsuccessful external cardioversion.

Acute anticoagulation adjustment in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke: approaches, strategies, risks and benefits

The acute management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation to prevent stroke and other thromboembolic complications includes the use of individualized strategies tailored to the patient and based on the situation (cardioversion, surgeries, dental procedures, cardiac interventions, other invasive procedures and initiation of, or adjustment to, warfarin dosing). The vast range of choices can cause confusion and few randomized controlled clinical trials in this area provide adequate guidance. Chronic anticoagulation management is more straightforward since clinical evidence is ample, randomized clinical trial data provides cogent informaiton and guidelines have been established. Acute management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation to prevent thromboembolic complications is often unrecognized but is emerging as a crucial, but challenging, and increasingly complex aspect of the care of patients with atrial fibrillation. This review addresses issues regarding such patients who may be at risk for stroke and require acute adjustments of anticoagulation (in light of, or in lieu of, chronic anticoagulation). Several promising new strategies are considered in light of established medical care. This analysis provides practical recommendations based on available data and presents results from recent investigations that may provide insight into future strategies.

A simple point score system for predicting the efficacy of external rectilinear biphasic cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation

AIMS

To develop a simple point score system that can accurately predict the optimal energy of initial rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform shock for cardioversion (DC) of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 302 consecutive patients with AF who underwent a step-up protocol of sequential shocks of 50 J-from 1 up to 2 J/kg-200 J of RLB waveform DC were prospectively examined. Using a logistic regression model, three variables independently predicted the need for 2 J/kg shocks: AF duration > 7 months, previous DC, and increased left atrial (LA) diameter > 4.5 cm. A simplified point score system (REBICAF score) that spans from 0 to 4 was developed. The score gives two points for AF duration > 7 months and one point for previous DC or LA diameter > 4.5 cm. The area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) of the proposed score for predicting the need for 2 J/kg shock was 0.84. There was a progressive increase in the need for 1 J/kg, 2 J/kg, and 200 J as the point score increased (P < 0.001, chi2 test for trend). More than 90% cumulative success rate was achieved in the low- (0-1), intermediate- (2), and high-REBICAF (3-4) score subgroups with 1 J/kg, 2 J/kg, and 200 J RLB shocks, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A simple point score system is useful in prediction of successful initial RLB energy for DC of AF.

Esophageal electric fields are correlated to atrial defibrillation thresholds: towards patient-specific optimization of external atrial defibrillation

Studies have investigated the effect of defibrillator paddle position on the efficacy of external electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation, without agreeing upon an optimal placement. We wish to investigate using esophageal electric fields (EEFs) to predict atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) on a patient-specific basis. We propose to (1) investigate the relationship between EEFs and ADFTs using computer simulations, (2) develop an esophageal probe that can accurately measure three-dimensional electric fields and (3) investigate the relationship between EEFs and ADFTs values in-vivo. Sixteen anterior-anterior and eleven anterior-posterior placements were simulated yielding a negative relationship between EEFs and ADFTs (R2=0.91 and 0.93, respectively). An esophageal probe was developed that accurately measures EEFs. Animal studies showed a negative relationship between EEFs and ADFTs. This data suggests using EEFs to predict ADFTs on a patient-specific basis is plausible.

A retrospective evaluation of transthoracic biphasic electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in dogs

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety, efficacy, and clinical usefulness of biphasic transthoracic cardioversion for management of dogs with atrial fibrillation (AF).

BACKGROUND

In dogs AF is usually managed with heart rate control rather than by restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). However, restoration of SR has potential advantages of improving cardiac output and reducing ventricular filling pressures, and biphasic cardioversion provides an improved benefit/risk ratio compared to traditional monophasic cardioversion.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data from 39 dogs with spontaneous AF managed with biphasic transthoracic cardioversion was done. Conversion characteristics, adverse effects, and duration of SR were evaluated. Effects of heart disease and pretreatment with amiodarone on success of cardioversion and on duration of SR were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Restoration of SR was achieved in 36 of 39 dogs (92.3%). Presence of heart disease or atrial enlargement had no effect on cardioversion characteristics or ability to restore SR. Median duration of SR following cardioversion and treatment with amiodarone was 120 days. Dogs with lone AF remained in SR longer than those with heart disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic cardioversion is safe and effective. Although duration of SR varied, a majority of dogs remained in SR long enough to benefit.

Impedance compensated biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a multi-centre comparison of antero-apical and antero-posterior pad positions

AIMS

To compare the success rate for transthoracic direct current cardioversion (DCC) of atrial fibrillation (AF) with antero-posterior (AP) and antero-apical (AA) electrode positions using an impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveform.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three-hundred and seven patients [mean age 66 (SD+/-13), 195 male] with AF were recruited in three centres. Patients were randomized to an AA (n=150) or AP (n=144) pad position. Thirteen patients with implanted pacemakers were defaulted to the AP pad position. Cardioversion was performed using an ICB waveform with a 70, 100, 150, and 200 J energy selection protocol. If the fourth shock was unsuccessful, the pads were crossed over to the alternative position for a final 200 J shock. Shock 1 was successful in 54/150 (36%) AA and 45/144 (31%) AP patients, whereas success was achieved by shock 2 in 99/150 (66%) AA and 74/144 (51%) AP, by shock 3 in 123/150 (82%) AA and 109/144 (76%) AP, and by shock 4 in 143/150 (95%) AA and 127/144 (88%) AP and after cross-over in 144/150 (96%) AA and 135/144 (94%) AP. Overall success rate was higher than expected at 95%. Pad position was not associated significantly with success. There was a trend towards an improved outcome with the AA configuration (P=0.05).

CONCLUSION

The influence of pad position for DCC of AF may be less pertinent with ICB waveforms than with monophasic waveforms.

Prospective, randomized comparison of two biphasic waveforms for the efficacy and safety of transthoracic biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in commercially available biphasic waveforms.

BACKGROUND

Although the superiority of biphasic over monophasic waveforms for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is established, the relative efficacy of available biphasic waveforms is less clear.

METHODS

We compared the effectiveness of a biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform and a biphasic rectilinear (BR) waveform for external cardioversion of AF. Patients (N = 188) with AF were randomized to receive transthoracic BR shocks (50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 200 J) or BTE shocks (50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 360 J). Shock strength was escalated until success or maximum energy dose was achieved. If maximum shock strength failed, patients received the maximum shock of the opposite waveform. Analysis included 141 patients (71 BR, 70 BTE; mean age 66.5 +/- 13.7. Forty-seven randomized patients were excluded because of flutter on precardioversion ECG upon blinded review (n = 25), presence of intracardiac thrombus (n = 7), or protocol deviation (n = 15). Groups were similar with regard to clinical and echocardiographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The success rate was similar for the two waveforms (93% BR vs 97 BTE, P = .44), although cumulative selected and delivered energy was less in the BTE group. Only AF duration was significantly different between successful and unsuccessful patients. No significant complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic waveforms were very effective in transthoracic cardioversion of AF, and complication rates were low. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between BR and BTE waveforms. Impedance was not an important determinant of success for either biphasic waveform.

A trial of self-adhesive patch electrodes and hand-held paddle electrodes for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (MOBIPAPA)

AIMS

External electrical cardioversion is the method of choice to terminate persistent atrial fibrillation. Whether the type of shock electrode affects cardioversion success is not known. We tested whether hand-held steel electrodes improve cardioversion outcome with monophasic or biphasic shocks when compared with adhesive patch electrodes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two hundred and one consecutive patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (147 male, mean age 63+/-1 years, duration of atrial fibrillation 6.3+/-1 months) were randomly assigned to cardioversion using either a sinusoidal monophasic or a truncated exponential biphasic shock wave form. The first half of patients were cardioverted using adhesive patch electrodes, the second half using hand-held steel paddle electrodes, and all patients using an anterior-posterior electrode position. Paddle electrodes successfully cardioverted 100/104 patients (96%) and patch electrodes 85/97 patients (88%, P=0.04). This effect was comparable to that of biphasic shocks: biphasic shocks cardioverted 102/104 patients (98%) and monophasic shocks 83/97 patients (86%, P=0.001). A beneficial effect of paddle electrodes was observed for both shock wave forms. After cross-over from an ineffective monophasic to a biphasic shock, cardioversion was successful in 198/201 (98.5%) patients. Unsuccessful cardioversion after cross-over (3/201 patients) only occurred with patch electrodes (P=0.07).

CONCLUSION

Hand-held paddle electrodes increase success of external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in this trial. This increase is of similar magnitude as the increase in cardioversion success achieved with biphasic shocks. A combination of biphasic shocks, paddle electrodes, and an anterior-posterior electrode position renders outcome of external cardioversion almost always successful (104/104 patients in this trial).

Efficacy of transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation using a biphasic, truncated exponential shock waveform at variable initial shock energies

Biphasic shocks are more effective than damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF), but the optimal protocol for CV with biphasic shocks has not been defined. We conducted a prospective, randomized study of 120 consecutive patients with persistent AF to delineate the dose-response curve for CV of AF with a biphasic truncated exponential shock waveform and to identify clinical predictors of shock efficacy. Our data suggest that the initial shock energy for CV with this waveform should be 200 J if the patient weighs <90 kg and 360 J if the patient weighs >/=90 kg.

Waveforms for defibrillation and cardioversion: recent experimental and clinical studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The advent of biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation has generated extensive experimental and clinical investigation. At the same time, it has led to the development and clinical use of biphasic waveforms of several different designs. Finally, other types of waveforms, primarily triphasic, have entered experimental evaluation.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is virtually universal agreement that biphasic waveforms, regardless of design, have greater efficacy in defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation and in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation when compared with monophasic waveforms. It remains unresolved, however, whether any specific biphasic waveform has greater clinical superiority than others. Likewise, it remains to be demonstrated whether any biphasic waveform is less injurious to myocardial function than another and whether injury, if it is incurred, is secondary to peak delivered current or to delivered energy. Biphasic truncated exponential waveforms are used by most manufacturers, whereas a rectilinear biphasic waveform and a pulsed waveform also are being used clinically.

SUMMARY

Biphasic waveforms have supplanted monophasic waveforms for defibrillation and cardioversion. They include biphasic truncated exponential, rectilinear, and pulsed biphasic versions. At this time, there is no certain evidence of clinical superiority of one waveform over another in terms of either efficacy or myocardial injury.