Key result
Antero-apical pad position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation showed a trend toward improved success by shock 4 compared to antero-posterior position (95.3% vs 88.2%; P=0.05).
Why the study?
Does antero-apical pad position improve cardioversion success compared to antero-posterior pad position in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing direct current cardioversion with biphasic waveforms?
RCT (n=307)
randomized
Yes
Does antero-apical pad position improve cardioversion success compared to antero-posterior pad position in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing direct current cardioversion with biphasic waveforms?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The use of antero-apical versus antero-posterior pad positions does not significantly affect the success rate of direct current cardioversion for atrial fibrillation when using impedance compensated biphasic waveforms.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walsh et al. (2005) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=307). Antero-apical (AA) pad position vs. Antero-posterior (AP) pad position was evaluated on Success rate for transthoracic direct current cardioversion by shock 4 (p=0.05). Antero-apical pad position for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation showed a trend toward improved success by shock 4 compared to antero-posterior position (95.3% vs 88.2%; P=0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: