External Cardioversion in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation A Reappraisal of the Effects of Electrode Pad Position and Transthoracic Impedance on Cardioversion Success

External electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardias: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Cardioversion is a rhythm control strategy to restore normal/sinus rhythm, and can be achieved through drugs (pharmacological) or a synchronised electric shock (electrical cardioversion).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardias.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) and three trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) on 14 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) at the individual patient level. Patient populations were aged ≥ 18 years with AF of any type and duration, atrial flutter or other sustained related atrial arrhythmias, not occurring as a result of reversible causes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to collect data and performed a network meta-analysis using the standard frequentist graph-theoretical approach using the netmeta package in R. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence which we presented in our summary of findings with a judgement on certainty. We calculated differences using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as well as ranking treatments using a P value. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity and split the networks for the primary outcome and acute procedural success, due to concerns about violating the transitivity assumption.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 112 RCTs (139 records), from which we pooled data from 15,968 patients. The average age ranged from 47 to 72 years and the proportion of male patients ranged from 38% to 92%. Seventy-nine trials were considered to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain, 32 had no high risk of bias domains, but had at least one domain classified as uncertain risk, and one study was considered at low risk for all domains. For paroxysmal AF (35 trials), when compared to placebo, anteroapical (AA)/anteroposterior (AP) biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) cardioversion (RR: 2.42; 95% CI 1.65 to 3.56), quinidine (RR: 2.23; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34), ibutilide (RR: 2.00; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.12), propafenone (RR: 1.98; 95% CI 1.67 to 2.34), amiodarone (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.02), sotalol (RR: 1.58; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.31) and procainamide (RR: 1.49; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.97) likely result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm until hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate). The effect size was larger for AA/AP incremental and was progressively smaller for the subsequent interventions. Despite low certainty of evidence, antazoline may result in a large increase (RR: 28.60; 95% CI 1.77 to 461.30) in this outcome. Similarly, low-certainty evidence suggests a large increase in this outcome for flecainide (RR: 2.17; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.79), vernakalant (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.99), and magnesium (RR: 1.73; 95% CI 0.79 to 3.79). For persistent AF (26 trials), one network was created for electrical cardioversion and showed that, when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches, AP BTE maximum energy with patches (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55) likely results in a large increase, and active compression AP BTE incremental energy with patches (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.131) likely results in an increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: high). Use of AP BTE incremental with paddles (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight increase, and AP MDS Incremental paddles (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight decrease in efficacy. On the other hand, AP MDS incremental energy using patches (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87), AA RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), AP RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.86), AA MDS incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and AA MDS incremental energy with paddles (RR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83) probably result in a decrease in this outcome when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches (certainty of evidence: moderate). The network for pharmacological cardioversion showed that bepridil (RR: 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.17) and quindine (RR: 1.53, (95% CI 1.01 to 2.32) probably result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up when compared to amiodarone (certainty of evidence: moderate). Dofetilide (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.44), sotalol (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.18), propafenone (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25) and pilsicainide (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.01) may result in a reduction in this outcome when compared to amiodarone, but the certainty of evidence is low. For atrial flutter (14 trials), a network could be created only for antiarrhythmic drugs. Using placebo as the common comparator, ibutilide (RR: 21.45, 95% CI 4.41 to 104.37), propafenone (RR: 7.15, 95% CI 1.27 to 40.10), dofetilide (RR: 6.43, 95% CI 1.38 to 29.91), and sotalol (RR: 6.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 39.78) probably result in a large increase in the maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate), and procainamide (RR: 4.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 29.03), flecainide (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 52.30) and vernakalant (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 27.37) may result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: low). All tested electrical cardioversion strategies for atrial flutter had very high efficacy (97.9% to 100%). The rate of mortality (14 deaths) and stroke or systemic embolism (3 events) at 30 days was extremely low. Data on quality of life were scarce and of uncertain clinical significance. No information was available regarding heart failure readmissions. Data on duration of hospitalisation was scarce, of low quality, and could not be pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low quality of evidence, this systematic review provides important information on electrical and pharmacological strategies to help patients and physicians deal with AF and atrial flutter. In the assessment of the patient comorbidity profile, antiarrhythmic drug onset of action and side effect profile versus the need for a physician with experience in sedation, or anaesthetics support for electrical cardioversion are key aspects when choosing the cardioversion method.

Antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the success of antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, due to small sample size and conflicting results of these RCTs, the optimal electrode positioning for successful cardioversion remains uncertain.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Outcomes of interest included overall success of cardioversion with restoration of sinus rhythm, 1st shock success, 2nd shock success, mean shock energy required for successful cardioversion, mean number of shocks required for successful cardioversion, success of cardioversion at high energy (> 150 J) and success of cardioversion at low energy (< 150 J). Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs comprising 2445 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference between two cardioversion approaches in the overall success of cardioversion (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.97-1.06]; p = 0.43), first shock success (RR 1.14; 95% CI [0.99-1.32]), second shock success (RR 1.08; 95% CI [0.94-1.23]), mean shock energy required (mean difference 6.49; 95% CI [-17.33-30.31], success at high energy > 150 J (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.92-1.14] and success at low energy < 150 J (RR 1.09; 95% CI [0.97-1.22]).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs shows no significant difference in the success of cardioversion between antero-lateral vs. antero-posterior electrode position for cardioversion of AF. Large well-conducted and adequately powered randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively address this question.

Electrical energy by electrode placement for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Electrode patch position may not be critical for success when cardioverting atrial fibrillation (AF), but the relevance of applied electrical energy is unclarified. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of randomised trials to examine the dose-response relation between energy level and cardioversion success by electrode position in elective cardioversion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Scopus Citations. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials using biphasic shock waves and self-adhesive patches, and publication date from 2000 to 2023. We used random-effects dose-response models to meta-analyse the relation between energy level and cardioversion success by anterolateral and anteroposterior position. Random-effects models estimated pooled risk ratios (RR) for cardioversion success after the first and the final shocks between the two electrode positions.

RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials (N=1078). After the first low-energy shock, the electrode position was not significantly associated with the likelihood of successful cardioversion (pooled RR anterolateral vs anteroposterior placement 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.76, with considerable heterogeneity). After a high-energy final shock, there was no evidence of an association between the electrode position and the cumulative chance of cardioversion success (pooled RR anterolateral vs anteroposterior 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14). Regardless of electrode position, cardioversion success was significantly less likely with shock energy levels < 200J compared with 200J.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from contemporary randomised trials suggests that higher level of electrical energy is associated with higher conversion rate when cardioverting AF with a biphasic shockwave. Positioning of electrodes can be based on convenience.

Anteriolateral versus anterior-posterior electrodes in external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

The efficacy of anteriolateral versus anterior-posterior electrode positions in the success of atrial fibrillation's (AF) electrical cardioversion is unclear. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis to compare the success rate of both electrode positions. PUBMED, WOS, OVID, and SCOPUS were searched. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials that compared anterior-lateral with anterior-posterior electrodes in external cardioversion of AF. After the full-text screening, 11 trials were included in the analysis. The total number of patients included in the study is 1845. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between anterior-lateral electrode and increased cardioversion rate of AF (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.92, p = .04). Subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant association between the anterior-lateral electrode and increased cardioversion rate of AF in subgroups of less than five shocks, patients with 60 years old or more and patients with left atrial (LA) diameter >45 mm (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.17-2.54, p = .006), (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.18-2.54, p = .005), and (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.04-3.34, p = .04), respectively. Anteriolateral electrode is more effective than anterior-posterior electrode in external cardioversion of AF, particularly in patients who have received less than 5 shocks, are 60 years old or older and have a LA diameter greater than 45 mm.

A stepwise external cardioversion protocol for atrial fibrillation to maximize acute success rate

AIMS

Cardioversion is a very commonly performed procedure for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is no well-defined protocol to address failed external electrical direct current cardioversion. The aim of the study is to test the efficacy of a pre-defined stepwise cardioversion protocol for patients with persistent AF of ≤12 months. Success was the achievement of sinus rhythm.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population included patients with persistent AF of ≤12 months duration requiring rhythm management. Patients were offered cardioversion using a pre-defined stepwise protocol using different electrode placement locations, applying compression at end of expiration, and higher energy delivered simultaneously through two defibrillators. : A total of 414 patients were included in the study, of which 362 (87.4%) required a single successful cardioversion. The remaining 52 (12.5%) patients required additional cardioversion attempts using the stepwise cardioversion protocol with an overall success rate of 99.3%. Two simultaneous defibrillators were required in 14 patients (3.4%). Patients with multiple cardioversions (13.5%) experienced more local skin irritation and pain compared with patients with single cardioversion (13.5% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.004). The predictor for the need for multiple cardioversion attempts is high body mass index, while high transthoracic impedance is associated with failed cardioversion. No major complications were observed during the study.

CONCLUSION

The stepwise cardioversion protocol has a high success rate of >99% and can be safely performed in outpatient or inpatient settings.

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.

Anteroposterior Versus Anterolateral Electrode Position for Direct Current Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Data regarding optimal electrode positioning for direct current cardioversion (DCCV) of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been inconsistent. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically compare the efficacy of anteroposterior (AP) versus anterolateral (AL) electrode placement for DCCV of AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AP versus AL electrode positioning in patients undergoing DCCV for AF. Primary endpoints were first-shock success and overall DCCV success. Subgroup analysis was performed by defibrillator waveform (monophasic versus biphasic). Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for significant moderators.

RESULTS

Twelve (12) RCTs, including a total of 2,046 patients, met inclusion criteria. Neither first-shock success (relative risk [RR] 0.92; 95% CI 0.79-1.07; p=0.28) nor overall DCCV success (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.96-1.05; p=0.78) were significantly different with AP versus AL electrode positioning. The mean number of shocks (mean difference [MD] 0.3, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.9), energy level of first successful shock (MD 3 joules; 95% CI -20 to 27) and cumulative energy delivered (MD 39 joules; 95% CI -168 to 246) were similar in AP versus AL arms. In subgroup analysis of six RCTs using biphasic defibrillators, improvement in first-shock success (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69-1.03; p=0.10) and overall DCCV success (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.01; p=0.09) with AL electrode positioning did not reach statistical significance. Meta-regression analyses identified older age, higher body mass index, and longer AF duration as significant moderators favouring AL electrode positioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled analysis of randomised data overall does not show a significant difference in efficacy between AP versus AL electrode positioning. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses suggest that, in contemporary practice with use of biphasic defibrillators, there may be a subset of AF patients in whom AL electrode positioning improves efficacy of DCCV.

Anterior-Posterior versus anterior-lateral electrodes position for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The optimal electrodes position for elective direct current (DC) cardioversion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain.

Methods

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was performed through March 2022 for randomized trials that examined the outcomes of anterior-posterior (AP) versus anterior-lateral (AL) electrodes position during cardioversion of (AF). The main outcome was the success rate of cardioversion. Data were pooled using random effects model.

Results

The final analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 1677 patients. There was no difference in the rate of successful cardioversion between the AP versus AL groups (86.6 vs 87.9 %; RR 1.00; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06). Subgroup analysis by the shock waveform showed no significant interaction between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (P_intercation = 0.23). meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification of primary outcome according to body mass index (p = 0.15), left atrial diameter (p = 0.64), valvular heart disease (p = 0.34), lone AF (p = 0.58), or the duration of AF (p = 0.70). There was no significant difference between the AP and AL electrode position groups in successful cardioversion at low energy (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.19), the number of the delivered shocks (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.03; 95 % CI −0.32 to 0.26) or the mean energy of the delivered shocks (SMD −0.11 and 95 % CI −0.30 to 0.07). There was lower transthoracic impedance with AP versus AL electrode position (SMD −0.28; 95 %CI −0.47 to −0.10).

Conclusion

Meta-analysis of randomized data showed no difference between AP and AL electrode positions in the success rate of DC cardioversion of AF. Either AP or AL electrode positions should be acceptable approaches for elective DC cardioversion of patients with AF.

A Systematic Review of the Transthoracic Impedance during Cardiac Defibrillation

For cardiac defibrillator testing and design purposes, the range and limits of the human TTI is of high interest. Potential influencing factors regarding the electronic configurations, the electrode/tissue interface and patient characteristics were identified and analyzed. A literature survey based on 71 selected articles was used to review and assess human TTI and the influencing factors found. The human TTI extended from 12 to 212 Ω in the literature selected. Excluding outliers and pediatric measurements, the mean TTI recordings ranged from 51 to 112 Ω with an average TTI of 76.7 Ω under normal distribution. The wide range of human impedance can be attributed to 12 different influencing factors, including shock waveforms and protocols, coupling devices, electrode size and pressure, electrode position, patient age, gender, body dimensions, respiration and lung volume, blood hemoglobin saturation and different pathologies. The coupling device, electrode size and electrode pressure have the greatest influence on TTI.

Anterior-Lateral Versus Anterior-Posterior Electrode Position for Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Smaller randomized studies have reported conflicting results regarding the optimal electrode position for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. However, anterior-posterior electrode positioning is widely used as a standard and believed to be superior to anterior-lateral electrode positioning. Therefore, we aimed to compare anterior-lateral and anterior-posterior electrode positioning for cardioverting atrial fibrillation in a multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion to either anterior-lateral or anterior-posterior electrode positioning. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after up to 4 shocks escalating to maximum energy. Safety outcomes were any cases of arrhythmia during or after cardioversion, skin redness, and patient-reported periprocedural pain.

RESULTS

We randomized 468 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 126 patients (54%) assigned to the anterior-lateral electrode position and in 77 patients (33%) assigned to the anterior-posterior electrode position (risk difference, 22 percentage points [95% CI, 13-30]; P<0.001). The number of patients in sinus rhythm after the final cardioversion shock was 216 (93%) assigned to anterior-lateral electrode positioning and 200 (85%) assigned to anterior-posterior electrode positioning (risk difference, 7 percentage points [95% CI, 2-12]). There were no significant differences between groups in any safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior-lateral electrode positioning was more effective than anterior-posterior electrode positioning for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. There were no significant differences in any safety outcome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03817372.

Role of peak current in conversion of patients with ventricular fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Peak currents are the final arbiter of defibrillation in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, biphasic defibrillators continue to use energy in joules for electrical conversion in hopes that their impedance compensation properties will address transthoracic impedance (TTI), which must be overcome when a fixed amount of energy is delivered. However, optimal peak currents for conversion of VF remain unclear. We aimed to determine the role of peak current and optimal peak levels for conversion in collapsed VF patients.

METHODS

Adult, non-pregnant patients presenting with non-traumatic VF were included in the study. All defibrillations that occurred were included. Impedance values during defibrillation were used to calculate peak current values. The endpoint was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

RESULTS

Of the 197 patients analysed, 105 had ROSC. Characteristics of patients with and without ROSC were comparable. Short duration of collapse < 10 minutes correlated positively with ROSC. Generally, patients with average or high TTI converted at lower peak currents. 25% of patients with high TTI converted at 13.3 ± 2.3 A, 22.7% with average TTI at 18.2 ± 2.5 A and 18.6% with low TTI at 27.0 ± 4.7 A (p = 0.729). Highest peak current conversions were at < 15 A and 15-20 A. Of the 44 patients who achieved first-shock ROSC, 33 (75.0%) received < 20 A peak current vs. > 20 A for the remaining 11 (25%) patients (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

For best effect, priming biphasic defibrillators to deliver specific peak currents should be considered.

The efficacy of pad placement for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation/flutter: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Electrical cardioversion is commonly used to treat patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter to restore normal sinus rhythm. There has been considerable debate as to whether the electrode placement affects the efficacy of electrical cardioversion. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of anteroposterior (A-P) versus anterolateral (A-L) electrode placement to restore normal sinus rhythm.

METHODS

A search of eight electronic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane was completed. Grey literature (hand-searching, Google, and SCOPUS) searching was also conducted. Studies were included if they were controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of A-P versus A-L pad placement to restore normal sinus rhythm in adult patients with atrial fibrillation and flutter. Two independent reviewers judged study relevance, inclusion, and quality (e.g., risk of bias). Individual and pooled statistics were calculated as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity (I(2) ) was reported.

RESULTS

From 788 citations, 13 studies were included; seven involved monophasic, five involved biphasic, and one analyzed both waveform devices. The included studies tended to report cumulative success rates to restoring normal sinus rhythm after one to five sequential shocks of increasing energy; the number of shocks and energy used differed among studies. The risk of bias of the studies was "unclear." After the first shock, pad placement was not associated with an increased likelihood of restoring normal sinus rhythm (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.06); however, heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 63%). Subgroup comparisons revealed that the A-L position was more effective (RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.00) at restoring normal sinus rhythm when using biphasic shocks (comparison p = 0.04). Overall, the pooled results failed to identify a difference between A-P and A-L pad placement in restoring normal sinus rhythm at any time (RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.05); however, heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 61%). No significant subgroup differences were found. Side effects were reported in only three studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature is restricted to persistent atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, pad placement varied, and energy levels used were lower than currently recommended; however, the accumulated evidence suggests that electrical pad placement is not a critically important factor in successful cardioversion in atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF/AFL). A trial is urgently needed in recent-onset atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter patients using biphasic devices and high energy levels to resolve the debate.

Update on cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines of interest to anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The new cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines emphasize the importance of high-quality chest compressions and modify some routines. The objective of this report was to review the main changes in resuscitation practiced by anesthesiologists.

CONTENTS

The emphasis on high-quality chest compressions with adequate rate and depth allowing full recoil of the chest and with minimal interruptions is highlighted in this update. One should not take more than ten seconds checking the pulse before starting CPR. The universal relationship of 30:2 is maintained, modifying its order, initiating with chest compressions, followed by airways and breathing (C-A-B instead of A-B-C). The procedure "look, listen, and feel whether the patient is breathing" was removed from the algorithm, and the use of cricoid pressure during ventilations is not recommended any more. The rate of chest compressions was changed for at least one hundred per minute instead of approximately one hundred per minute, and its depth in adults was changed to 5 cm instead of the prior recommendation of 4 to 5 cm. The single shock is maintained, and it should be of 120 to 200 J when it is biphasic; and 360 J when it is monophasic. In advanced cardiac life support, the use of capnography and capnometry to confirm intubation and monitoring the quality of CPR is a formal recommendation. Atropine is no longer recommended for routine use in the treatment of pulseless electrical activity or asystole.

CONCLUSIONS

Updating the phases of the new CPR guidelines is important, and continuous learning is recommended. This will improve the quality of resuscitation and survival of patients in cardiac arrest.

Electrical therapies in cardiac arrest

Recognition and appropriate treatment of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia is an essential skill for healthcare providers. Appropriate defibrillation can improve survival and benefit patient outcome. Similarly, increased public access to automatic electronic defibrillators has been shown to improve out-of-hospital survival for cardiac arrest. When combined with high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation, electrical therapies are an important aspect of resuscitation in the patient with cardiac arrest. This article focuses on the use of electrical therapies, including defibrillation, cardiac pacing, and automated external defibrillators, in cardiac arrest.

[Comparison of two electrode positions in electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation]

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare effectiveness of electrical cardioversion (ECV) in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) according to the electrode positions: anteroapical (A-A) or anteroposterior (A-P). That which restores the sinus rhythm (SR) using the least energy is considered superior.

DESIGN

Observational study comparing two consecutive series of patients. SCOPE. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of second level hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Out-patients in AF referred to the ICU for biphasic ECV. The first series began with position A-A and the second one with A-P, administering up to 3 shocks (150-200-200J), changing to the alternative position if SR was not achieved and administering 2 more shocks of 200J. Age, gender, weight, baseline heart disease, ejection fraction, left atrial size, AF time, baseline vital signs, antiarrhythmic medication, reversion to SR, number of shocks, energy used and side effects were analyzed and compared between both series. RESULTS. A total of 50 patients were treated in each group. The baseline characteristics were similar except for a greater percentage of women in group A-A. The anteroapical electrode position achieved SR with significantly fewer numbers of shocks and less energy, more frequently achieving reversion on the first shock.

CONCLUSIONS

We found greater effectiveness in the electrical cardioversion of the AF with the electrodes in the anteroapical position, that we recommend as first choice. If it is not effective, the A-P position should be attempted.

Randomized comparison of anterolateral versus anteroposterior electrode position for biphasic external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

In biphasic external cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF), the influence of different electrode positions on efficacy and incidence of early recurrent atrial fibrillation is not known. This study compared anteroposterior (AP) vs anterolateral (AL) electrode positioning.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for CV of persistent AF were randomized either to an AP or an AL electrode position. Biphasic external CV was performed with standardized electrode positions and rising energy delivery.

RESULTS

Both groups (N = 123, mean age 66 years, 71% male, 83% with structural cardiovascular disease or hypertension) did not differ concerning age, sex, body mass index, chronic antiarrhythmic therapy, duration of AF, left ventricular ejection fraction, and left atrial diameter. Cumulative success rates were comparable (AP 94.9% vs AL 95.2%, P = ns). First-shock efficacy did not differ (AP 78.3% vs AL 74.6%, P = ns). Early recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF relapse < 1 minute after successful CV) occurred in 8.1% (AP 11.6% vs AL 4.8%, P = ns). Mean number of shocks was 1.3 per patient with the AP configuration and 1.4 per patient with the AL configuration (P = ns). Mean cumulative energy delivery was also comparable (AP 171 WS vs AL 198 WS, P = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

Both electrode positions are similar in biphasic external CV of AF with regard to acute success and early recurrent atrial fibrillation. Also, the number of shocks needed and energy delivery are comparable with both electrode configurations.

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.