Key result
Anteroposterior electrode pad positioning significantly lowered transthoracic impedance but did not improve cumulative cardioversion success rates compared to conventional anterolateral positioning (84.6% vs 83.9%).
Why the study?
Does anteroposterior electrode pad position improve cardioversion success compared to anterolateral position in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Population
70 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing elective cardioversion
Comparison
Electrode pad position over the right lower… vs Electrode pad position situated over the…
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Authors
Loading...
Anterolateral positioning remains acceptable for cardioversion in persistent AF; confirms transthoracic impedance as the dominant predictor of success over pad placement.
RCT (n=70)
Open-label
Randomly assigned
No
Does anteroposterior electrode pad position improve cardioversion success compared to anterolateral position in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 84.6% vs 83.9%
Transthoracic impedance, rather than electrode pad position, is the primary determinant of external cardioversion success and correlates with energy requirement in persistent atrial fibrillation.
Chen et al. (2003) conducted an RCT in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (n=70). Anteroposterior (AP) electrode pad position vs. Anterolateral (AL) electrode pad position was evaluated on Cumulative cardioversion success rate at maximum energy (360 J). Anteroposterior electrode pad positioning significantly lowered transthoracic impedance but did not improve cumulative cardioversion success rates compared to conventional anterolateral positioning (84.6% vs 83.9%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: