Safety and efficacy of internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function

Low efficacy of cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are conditions that often coexist. Consequently, many patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) present with AF. We evaluated the effectiveness of internal cardioversion of AF in patients with an ICD.

METHODS

Retrospectively, we included 27 consecutive ICD patients with persistent AF who underwent internal cardioversion using the ICD. When ICD cardioversion failed, external cardioversion was performed.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly male (89 %) with a mean (SD) age of 65 ± 9 years and left ventricular ejection fraction of 36 ± 17 %. Only nine (33 %) patients had successful internal cardioversion after one, two or three shocks. The remaining 18 patients underwent external cardioversion after they failed internal cardioversion, which resulted in sinus rhythm in all. A smaller left atrial volume (99 ± 36 ml vs. 146 ± 44 ml; p = 0.019), a longer right atrial cycle length (227 (186-255) vs. 169 (152-183) ms, p = 0.030), a shorter total AF history (2 (0-17) months vs. 40 (5-75) months, p = 0.025) and dual-coil ICD shock (75 % vs. 26 %, p = 0.093) were associated with successful ICD cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

Internal cardioversion of AF in ICD patients has a low success rate but may be attempted in those with small atria, a long right atrial fibrillatory cycle length and a short total AF history, especially when a dual-coil ICD is present. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to prefer external over internal cardioversion when it comes to termination of persistent AF.

Is An Atrial Defibrillator Still An Option In Treating Patients With Atrial Fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common disorder associated with significant morbidities and presents several challenges for the control of symptoms and prevention of long-term implications. Atrial defibrillators (ADs), used for rhythm control in patients with symptoms refractory to medical therapy, can detect recurrences of the arrhythmia, allow prompt patient-directed treatment, and have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life. The efficacy of this form of therapy is highest in patients with paroxysmal AF, and with the use of a coronary sinus shocking lead. While R-wave synchronized shocks are a prerequisite for a safe use, the procedure is well tolerated and usually not associated with long-term psychological side effects. Limitations of ADs include acute and chronic complications related to cardiac rhythm device implantation, the requirement in some cases for more than one shock to terminate AF, the discomfort from shocks, as well as the need for sedation to alleviate pain from the shocks. With the ever-expanding role of catheter-based therapies for AF, it seems that the role of ADs in this regard is rather limited.

Feasibility and efficacy of electrical cardioversion after cardiac resynchronization implantation in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may spontaneously recover sinus rhythm during follow-up. We tested the feasibility and efficacy of electrical cardioversion attempted after 3 months of CRT in patients with permanent AF and measured the long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm.

METHODS

Twenty-eight consecutive patients with permanent AF in whom CRT defibrillators had been implanted were scheduled for internal electrical cardioversion after 3 months (group A) and were compared with a control group of 27 patients (group B).

RESULTS

In group A, 22 patients (79 %) were eligible for cardioversion; sinus rhythm was restored in 18 (82 %) of these, with no procedural complications. After 12 months, 16 patients (58 %) in group A were in sinus rhythm, compared with one group B patient who spontaneously recovered sinus rhythm (4 %, p < 0.001). On 12-month evaluation, ejection fraction had improved in both groups, but a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume was recorded only in group A patients (p = 0.018 versus baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with permanent AF, the rhythm control strategy consisting of internal cardioversion, performed by means of the implanted cardioverter-defibrillator after 3 months of CRT, was associated with a high rate of sinus rhythm resumption on long-term follow-up and with a better echocardiographic response to CRT than that seen in patients treated according to a rate control strategy.

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.

Efficacy of internal cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction

Internal cardioversion can restore sinus rhythm with energies below 6-10 J, often without anaesthesia/sedation. We investigated its safety and short-/medium-term efficacy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with left ventricular dysfunction (defined as ejection fraction < or = 40%). Among 34 patients with persistent AF who agreed to receive internal cardioversion, 16 had left ventricular dysfunction and 18 did not (the groups were similar as regards age, duration of AF and pretreatment with amiodarone). Internal CV was performed delivering 3.0/3.0-ms biphasic shocks between coil catheters using a step-up protocol. Sinus rhythm was always restored. General anaesthesia (administered only when discomfort was not tolerated) was required only in 2 of the 16 (12.5%) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The defibrillation threshold was similar in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction (10.2+/-6.9 vs. 8.4+/-4.9 J; p=0.37). Short-term (within 72 h) AF recurrence rates in the presence and absence of left ventricular dysfunction were 19% (3/16) and 6% (1/18), respectively (p=0.51). After cardioversion, all patients received antiarrhythmic drugs (mostly amiodarone in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and class IC agents in the remainder). With mean follow-up periods of about 220 days, AF recurrence rates among patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction were 50% (8/16) and 28% (5/18), respectively (p=0.328). We conclude that even in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, internal CV is safe and effective, minimizing risks from anaesthesia. Although these patients may have a higher risk of short- or medium-term AF recurrence, 6-month maintenance of sinus rhythm is possible in about 50% of cases.

Effect of coronary sinus electrode on the optimal atrial defibrillation pathway for an atrioventricular defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have demonstrated significant failure in converting atrial fibrillation (AF) using a conventional ventricular pathway. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of incorporating a coronary sinus (CS) lead into the atrial defibrillation pathway in atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) reduction in patients with persistent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of shock configuration on ADFT in 18 patients undergoing elective internal cardioversion for persistent AF (mean AF duration: 8 +/- 9 months). The lead system included a dual-coil defibrillation lead (Endotak DSP, Guidant) with a distal right ventricular (RV) electrode and a proximal superior vena cava (SVC) electrode, a CS lead (Perimeter, Guidant), and a left pectoral cutaneous electrode (Can). In each patient, dual step-up ADFTs were determined for each of three vectors: (1) RV --> SVC+Can; (2) CS --> SVC+Can; and (3) RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1, n = 8) or RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2, n = 10), using R wave-synchronized biphasic shocks. Successful defibrillation was achieved in all patients without any ventricular proarrhythmia. ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can (11.8 +/- 5.6 J) was significantly lower than ADFT of RV --> SVC+Can (16.5 +/- 7.8 J, P = 0.021). ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can was similar to RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1: 12.0 +/- 6.5 J vs 17.4 +/- 4.8 J, P = 0.16), but it was significantly higher than RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2: 9.0 +/- 3.9 J vs 11.6 +/- 5.0 J, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Patients with persistent AF of substantial duration can be reliably cardioverted using a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead set; however, the incorporation of a CS lead to the conventional ICD lead configuration significantly lowered ADFT. The optimal shock vector that incorporates a CS lead for atrial defibrillation requires future studies.