Key result
Acute cardioversion shows no excess stroke risk vs. elective procedures after adjusting for anticoagulation.
Why the study?
Current information on differences in stroke risk after acute versus elective electrical cardioversion for symptomatic atrial fibrillation is lacking following recent European guideline updates.
Does acute electrical cardioversion increase the risk of stroke compared to elective cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=9,139)
Does acute electrical cardioversion increase the risk of stroke compared to elective cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.99 (95% CI 0.36–2.72)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.45% vs 0.2%
The increased unadjusted risk of stroke following acute cardioversion is driven by lack of anticoagulation, emphasizing the importance of current guideline-directed anticoagulation strategies.
Anticoagulation status appears to drive stroke risk after cardioversion; supports periprocedural anticoagulation importance while leaving acute-versus-elective differences open.
Background Electrical cardioversion (ECV) is routinely used to restore sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation. The European guidelines have been updated in recent years. Current information on differences in the risk for stroke after acute versus elective ECV is lacking. Methods And Results All patients with a first‐time acute or elective ECV in the Stockholm regional health care data warehouse from 2011 to 2018 were included. Cox regression analyses were performed evaluating ischemic or unspecified stroke within 30 days after ECV with adjustments for the CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score, medical treatment, and year of inclusion. The study included 9139 patients, 3094 after acute and 6045 after elective ECV. The mean age was 65.9±11.3 years, 69.5% were men, and the mean CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score was 2.4±1.7. Before the intervention, 49.6% of patients with an acute ECV and 96.4% of those with an elective ECV had claimed an oral anticoagulant prescription. Ischemic or unspecified stroke occurred in 26 (0.28%) patients within 30 days. The unadjusted risk was higher after acute compared with elective ECV (hazard ratio [HR], 2.29; 95% CI, 1.06–4.96), whereas there was no difference after multivariable adjustments (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.36–2.72). Both non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (adjusted HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08–0.98) and warfarin (adjusted HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.53) were associated with a lower risk for stroke compared with no anticoagulation. Conclusions Acute ECV was associated with a higher unadjusted risk for stroke than elective ECV, but the risk was similar after adjustment for anticoagulant treatment. This study indicates the importance of anticoagulation before ECV according to recent European guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Forslund et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=9,139). Acute electrical cardioversion vs. Elective electrical cardioversion was evaluated on Ischemic or unspecified stroke within 30 days after cardioversion (adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.36-2.72). Acute electrical cardioversion was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of stroke compared to elective cardioversion, but this difference was eliminated after adjustment for baseline anticoagulant treatment (adjusted HR 0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: