Why the study?
Does the duration of persistent atrial fibrillation affect the acute success and long-term sinus rhythm maintenance after electrical cardioversion?
Does the duration of persistent atrial fibrillation affect the acute success and long-term sinus rhythm maintenance after electrical cardioversion?
Long-term sinus rhythm maintenance after electrical cardioversion for persistent AF is strongly dependent on arrhythmia duration, with significantly worse outcomes when AF duration exceeds 6 months.
AF duration should guide cardioversion expectations; extends prior associations but leaves open whether earlier intervention improves outcomes.
Background: Current definition of persistent atrial fibrillation (PAF) enrolls a heterogeneous population with different atrial fibrillation (AF) exposure and degree of atrial substrate. Study aims were to evaluate acute and long‐term results of electrical cardioversion (ECV) and to identify temporal cutoff of previous AF exposure to reclassify PAF in subgroups with different chance of sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance. Methods: Five hundred twenty‐one patients (66% men; age 69 ± 10 years) with PAF undergoing ECV, were divided in four groups according to AF duration at the time of ECV: group A with AF ≤2 months (141 patients); group B with AF >2 and ≤4 months (176 patients); group C with AF >4 and ≤6 months (89 patients); and group D with AF >6 months and <1 year (115 patients). Results: There was no difference in term of acute success among groups (98.5% vs 97.1% vs 98.9% vs 96.5%, respectively, P = 0.95). At 5‐year follow‐up, 198 (41%) patients were in SR: 50% in group A, 44% in group B, 42% in group C, and 25% in group D (P < 0.001). At the multivariate analysis, previous ECV (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, P < 0.001), left atrium enlargement (HR 1.39, P = 0.013), and AF duration >6 months at time of procedure (HR 1.59, P = 0.001) independently predict ECV failure. Conclusion: ECV is associated with high acute success rate and low complications rate. Long‐term results are strongly related with AF duration at time of ECV: a cutoff of >6 months helps in selecting patients that can take greater advantage of the procedure. (PACE 2012; 35:1126–1134)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toso et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: