Key result
Anteroposterior defibrillator paddle position was superior to anterolateral position for successful conversion to sinus rhythm with high energy DC shock (87% vs 76%, p=0.013).
Why the study?
Does anteroposterior paddle position improve technical success and reduce energy requirements compared to anterolateral position in patients undergoing external cardioversion for stable atrial fibrillation?
Population
301 patients with stable atrial fibrillation, mean age 62 (SD 11) years.
Comparison
Elective external cardioversion using… vs Elective external cardioversion using…
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Authors
Loading...
May favor anteroposterior paddles for AF cardioversion success; leaves open optimal positioning with modern biphasic devices.
RCT (n=301)
Does anteroposterior paddle position improve technical success and reduce energy requirements compared to anterolateral position in patients undergoing external cardioversion for stable atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 87% vs 76%
p-value: p=0.013
Botto et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in Stable atrial fibrillation (n=301). Anteroposterior paddle position vs. Anterolateral paddle position was evaluated on Cumulative percentage of patients successfully converted to sinus rhythm with high energy dc shock (p=0.013). Anteroposterior defibrillator paddle position was superior to anterolateral position for successful conversion to sinus rhythm with high energy DC shock (87% vs 76%, p=0.013).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: