Key result
Low-energy internal cardioversion provided greater 28-day treatment satisfaction compared to external cardioversion (interaction p=0.04), despite lower initial satisfaction scores.
Why the study?
Does low-energy internal cardioversion improve treatment satisfaction compared to conventional external cardioversion in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=55)
Randomized
Does low-energy internal cardioversion improve treatment satisfaction compared to conventional external cardioversion in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation?
Internal cardioversion causes acute distress but provides greater 28-day tolerability and acceptance compared to external cardioversion, though failure to maintain sinus rhythm is the primary driver of low treatment satisfaction.
Internal cardioversion may enhance long-term satisfaction despite acute distress; extends RCT evidence on AF cardioversion tolerability.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of internal cardioversion (IC) in chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) may be limited by procedure-related distress. This procedure may be efficacious but is not necessarily perceived as satisfactory by the patient because of the frequent procedure-related distress. METHODS: We compared treatment satisfaction in 55 patients with chronic AF referred for cardioversion (CV). Satisfaction with conventional external cardioversion (EC, n = 27) and low-energy IC (n = 28) was compared immediately after the approach and at 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: Four hours after CV, satisfaction scores (ranging from 0 to 7) were higher with EC (mean 6.1 standard deviation [SD] +/- 1.4) versus IC (m = 5.4 SD +/- 1.8) (p = 0.09). At 28 days, treatment satisfaction decreased in EC (m = 5.5 SD +/- 2.1) and increased in the IC group (5.7 SD +/- 1.8) because of a decrease in the trustful attitude subscale (p = 0.026) followed by tolerance for distressing factors (p = 0.059). The analysis of variance for repeated measures revealed a significant time by method interaction effect (p = 0.04). Patients prone to developing low treatment satisfaction (LTS) at follow-up were more anxious (p = 0.007) before treatment. They suffered more from sleeping disorders (p = 0.009) and considered their disease condition to be worse than that in their counterparts (p = 0.027). Low treatment satisfaction at 28 days was associated with anxiety (p = 0.017), depression (p = 0.01), and the perception of heart-related symptoms (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed the failure to maintain sinus rhythm (p = 0.001) as the most powerful contributor to LTS. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IC approach causes acute procedure-related distress but has no enduring negative psychological side effects. Despite a greater patient perception of distressing procedure-related factors during IC compared with EC, the IC approach provides a greater 28-day benefit in terms of tolerability and acceptance on the part of the patients. Failure to maintain sinus rhythm rather than the method applied contributes most to LTS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ladwig et al. (2003) conducted an RCT in Chronic atrial fibrillation (n=55). Low-energy internal cardioversion vs. Conventional external cardioversion was evaluated on Treatment satisfaction score (0 to 7) at 28 days (p=0.04). Low-energy internal cardioversion provided greater 28-day treatment satisfaction compared to external cardioversion (interaction p=0.04), despite lower initial satisfaction scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: